Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave(nymag.com)
nymag.com
Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/rail-strike-why-the-railroads-wont-give-in-on-paid-leave-psr-precision-scheduled-railroading.html
376 comments
My understanding of the FIRST big problem with PSR is that it creates trains longer than the system is designed to handle, thus all the sidings that used to allow trains to pass in single tracked areas are unavailable, which increases fragility of the system in general.
This makes precision scheduling impossible... what this really is, is let's make all the workers wait (for free!) while we figure out how we can finally get the freight in monstrously long trains moving through a system that wasn't designed for it.
The SECOND problem is that slashing the labor pool, and thus reducing the labor cost at the expense of reliability and system performance, appears to be the actual goal of PSR.
I stand with the workers, no essential worker should be forced to work "on-call". Especially not people so important to safety and National Security.
This makes precision scheduling impossible... what this really is, is let's make all the workers wait (for free!) while we figure out how we can finally get the freight in monstrously long trains moving through a system that wasn't designed for it.
The SECOND problem is that slashing the labor pool, and thus reducing the labor cost at the expense of reliability and system performance, appears to be the actual goal of PSR.
I stand with the workers, no essential worker should be forced to work "on-call". Especially not people so important to safety and National Security.
I was talking with one of these on call workers working for BNSF, and calling it on call doesn't do the terribleness justice.
They are 8 hours on, and 8 hours off. The on call call is also 90 minutes ahead of time. So more like 6.5 hours off.
Many end up sleeping in the parking lot.
There's an alarm that rings every minute on the train - a dead man's switch. Oftentimes this is the only thing keeping them awake.
To top it off, no sick leave.
And these people are overseeing fucking trains.
Congress backing these companies in any way is absolutely disgusting.
They are 8 hours on, and 8 hours off. The on call call is also 90 minutes ahead of time. So more like 6.5 hours off.
Many end up sleeping in the parking lot.
There's an alarm that rings every minute on the train - a dead man's switch. Oftentimes this is the only thing keeping them awake.
To top it off, no sick leave.
And these people are overseeing fucking trains.
Congress backing these companies in any way is absolutely disgusting.
That's why my bro-in-law left being a train engineer. As the new guy, he had no control of his schedule and was constantly on call. He couldn't plan any time off with us or his friends, and it caused too much stress in his life. Something as simple as a consistent schedule would have done wonders for his mental health and allowed him to continue doing something that he had wanted to do for so long.
This is why "Precision" is Newspeak in so called Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR). All but a few engineers and conductors for whom trains can be reliability scheduled are on-call as a train is built up to the arbitrary number of 150 cars or whatever. Whenever it's of the "precise" size it goes, unless one of those two are unavailable.
And since no one can predict when a substitute might be needed, it would take many more spare engineers and conductors to cover for those out on a sick day. This has to be why the railroads are fighting so hard against this apparently trivial benefit, despite the bad optics etc.
And since no one can predict when a substitute might be needed, it would take many more spare engineers and conductors to cover for those out on a sick day. This has to be why the railroads are fighting so hard against this apparently trivial benefit, despite the bad optics etc.
>Congress backing these companies in any way is absolutely disgusting.
Just to be clear, Congress is not backing them, the Republican Party is.
Just to be clear, Congress is not backing them, the Republican Party is.
Then why did the bill, without paid sick leave, pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support?
> Then why did the bill, without paid sick leave, pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan support?
As I understand it, all but one Democrats (Manchin) voted for the 7 days paid sick leave amendment giving it 52-43 but it needed 60 votes.
As I understand it, all but one Democrats (Manchin) voted for the 7 days paid sick leave amendment giving it 52-43 but it needed 60 votes.
[deleted]
Do the math on the raw numbers, 5 Democrats simply did not vote on these measures, Manchin voted against, 6 Republicans voted for it.
The question is why did Team Pelosi not first try a bill with both measures, that's how you get something "hard" passed, bundling it with something "essential."
The question is why did Team Pelosi not first try a bill with both measures, that's how you get something "hard" passed, bundling it with something "essential."
thank you talking points memo
This is blatantly wrong. The Democrats have been EXTREMELY compliant in this destruction of workers rights, from Biden pushing through the contract to all members of the squad turning their back on them. The Republicans are dogshit because they want 14 year old girls to have to get coat hanger abortions, but almost every establishment Democrat does not give a single fuck about the working class/poor. (You should still vote Dem tho, having weird religious nut jobs who praise German leaders running the country is worse than a bunch of neo-liberals)
It is not blatantly wrong. Virtually all Democrats supported paid leave for rail workers, and virtually no Republicans did.
When push came to shove and actual stakes were on the line, we saw they were willing to strike break. If you don't view that as performative, then we collectively as Americans deserve to be under the boot of those currently in power.
It's very easy to vote for something you know won't pass. I've nothing civil to say about the republican party but the democrats absolutely dropped the ball here. The rank hypocrisy from Pete the choo choo secretary who had the benefit of months of paid family leave. The so-called squad who are all being curiously silent…
It's pretty damning that the only politicians making noise about how awful this legislation is are the republicans looking to find a wedge issue and Bernie Sanders.
It's pretty damning that the only politicians making noise about how awful this legislation is are the republicans looking to find a wedge issue and Bernie Sanders.
I don't really have a problem with "on-call" workers (after all, everyone on a ship is perpetually "on-call" during the tour) but it needs to be compensated and handled correctly.
On-call is fine if you get paid for the on-call hours and you have agreed to them in your contract. Just making people work for 24h a day for free is unacceptable. Oh it’s not work you’re just waiting to get pages at a minutes notice - yeah that’s work
> The SECOND problem is that slashing the labor pool, and thus reducing the labor cost
Just to clarify, did you mean slashing a given company’s jobs? The labor pool is the group of people in the job market available to perform a function. Slashing _that_ would drive salaries and thus labor costs up, not down.
Just to clarify, did you mean slashing a given company’s jobs? The labor pool is the group of people in the job market available to perform a function. Slashing _that_ would drive salaries and thus labor costs up, not down.
No, slashing the labor pool is supposed to increase the leverage labor has allowing labor to demand higher salaries. It doesn't just make salaries go up on their own. But as long as you can ignore the demands of that labor pool it doesn't necessarily do anything.
That said they slash jobs, but because it's specifically-skilled labor slashing jobs also slashes the labor pool, when there's no jobs people either never develop the skills/experience or they leave the field --and don't come back-- when they get laid off.
That said they slash jobs, but because it's specifically-skilled labor slashing jobs also slashes the labor pool, when there's no jobs people either never develop the skills/experience or they leave the field --and don't come back-- when they get laid off.
> No, slashing the labor pool is supposed to increase the leverage labor has allowing labor to demand higher salaries. It doesn't just make salaries go up on their own.
This is an odd straw man. Who would claim that any economic mechanism happens “on its own”?
> as long as you can ignore the demands of that labor pool it doesn't necessarily do anything.
_Specifically with regard to salaries_ this article very clearly says that the opposite is occurring:
> the companies agreed to a 24 percent pay increase by 2024, annual $1,000 bonuses, and a freeze on health-care costs.
> […]
> The freight carriers can afford to make concessions on pay. It isn’t that painful to increase wages by a sizable amount when you’ve recently slashed your head count by 30 percent
It seems weird to argue in the hypothetical about what the railroads’ actions might do to constrain salaries when there is ample evidence that’s not true.
This is an odd straw man. Who would claim that any economic mechanism happens “on its own”?
> as long as you can ignore the demands of that labor pool it doesn't necessarily do anything.
_Specifically with regard to salaries_ this article very clearly says that the opposite is occurring:
> the companies agreed to a 24 percent pay increase by 2024, annual $1,000 bonuses, and a freeze on health-care costs.
> […]
> The freight carriers can afford to make concessions on pay. It isn’t that painful to increase wages by a sizable amount when you’ve recently slashed your head count by 30 percent
It seems weird to argue in the hypothetical about what the railroads’ actions might do to constrain salaries when there is ample evidence that’s not true.
>Just to clarify, did you mean slashing a given company’s jobs?
I meant the labor pool in existence at the company at that moment in time... the current employees and those that could be contracted in, pulled down from management, etc. The supply of labor physically available to run the trains in that instance, not market wide.
I meant the labor pool in existence at the company at that moment in time... the current employees and those that could be contracted in, pulled down from management, etc. The supply of labor physically available to run the trains in that instance, not market wide.
The reason why labor received more rights in Europe after WWII is that the rulers were worried about labor following the example of the Soviets. Carrot pre-empting geopolitical problems.
As soon as the Soviet Union went away, the negotiating power of labor started to weaken.
The statements above are not to be taken as an endorsement of the various kinds of genocide and horrors Communism created in the places where it ruled. It is just an observation that power, or the implicit threat of applying it, is what rules in the end. Lots of words are used to cover that raw reality.
As soon as the Soviet Union went away, the negotiating power of labor started to weaken.
The statements above are not to be taken as an endorsement of the various kinds of genocide and horrors Communism created in the places where it ruled. It is just an observation that power, or the implicit threat of applying it, is what rules in the end. Lots of words are used to cover that raw reality.
What I don’t get is why folks don’t just quit and go to an industry with less abusive labor practices - hell even construction laborers get days off.
Switching jobs is hard for a ton of reasons.
We also do need people to operate the rail system. "Everybody just leaves and becomes a software engineer" isn't good for society.
We also do need people to operate the rail system. "Everybody just leaves and becomes a software engineer" isn't good for society.
I think working in the tech bubble has really created some misunderstandings about the average worker’s ability to just up and leave when things get bad.
With that said, I don’t think this is about everyone leaving as much as it is about forcing the rail industry to capitulate.
But for the aforementioned reasons, this is unlikely to happen, and rail companies know that.
It’s a really sad state of affairs, and I’m not sure what fixes it aside from drastic political shifts during elections, but even that seems highly questionable.
With that said, I don’t think this is about everyone leaving as much as it is about forcing the rail industry to capitulate.
But for the aforementioned reasons, this is unlikely to happen, and rail companies know that.
It’s a really sad state of affairs, and I’m not sure what fixes it aside from drastic political shifts during elections, but even that seems highly questionable.
This has been going on for decades. The changes to the industry were in 94.
One thing I learned a long time ago in ops is that if it doesn’t break (because someone sacrifices they’re well-being), then it won’t get fixed.
The managers and leaders keep pushing things because they can.
The managers and leaders keep pushing things because they can.
Absolutely. And union negotiations, and then a strike, are some ways that the workers can make it break.
Except when, as in this case, they are forbidden from striking by law.
Which is a legislative form of ‘keep working your field peasant, or else.’
Which is a legislative form of ‘keep working your field peasant, or else.’
[deleted]
We'll never have full self-driving trains with that attitude.
I think I know someone that could start working on it.
I think I know someone that could start working on it.
AIUI junior folks are leaving and the turnover is ridiculous. Folks with seniority are stuck in large part because of unvested pensions and because certifications often don't transfer to other industries even if the job skills seem like they ought to.
Yup. Worse yet, it is doomed to fail — just like deferred maintenance.
Instead of single random days off to get healthcare taken care of, they'll have random worker unavailability of weeks, months, or forever [0]. But, it's postponed so their numbers this quarter look good, but the system is rotting.
Any forking idiot can make numbers look good for a while by rotting the underlying system. This seems to be the trained remit of MBAs. Outside of managing the already-earned profits in the accounts, MBAs really are toxic to the long-term health of any business and especially its workers.
[0]from the article: >>Last June, one middle-aged union engineer postponed a doctor’s visit for work then died of a heart attack on the job weeks later. A conductor who spoke with the Times began feeling rundown last year but declined to see a doctor for fear of being disciplined for taking an unplanned day off. Instead, he waited months for the next doctor’s appointment that aligned with a scheduled day off. He then learned he’d been suffering from an infection that could have been treated with medication weeks earlier but would now require surgery.
Instead of single random days off to get healthcare taken care of, they'll have random worker unavailability of weeks, months, or forever [0]. But, it's postponed so their numbers this quarter look good, but the system is rotting.
Any forking idiot can make numbers look good for a while by rotting the underlying system. This seems to be the trained remit of MBAs. Outside of managing the already-earned profits in the accounts, MBAs really are toxic to the long-term health of any business and especially its workers.
[0]from the article: >>Last June, one middle-aged union engineer postponed a doctor’s visit for work then died of a heart attack on the job weeks later. A conductor who spoke with the Times began feeling rundown last year but declined to see a doctor for fear of being disciplined for taking an unplanned day off. Instead, he waited months for the next doctor’s appointment that aligned with a scheduled day off. He then learned he’d been suffering from an infection that could have been treated with medication weeks earlier but would now require surgery.
Such a surface level explanation. The real answer of course is politics. The railroads know the government won't let them shut down for even one day, so there's no reason for them to negotiate in good faith. So they negotiate in bad faith. Why would they give into labor demands when labor can't strike and their customers being big businesses won't substitute away in the face of political controversy?
Every large company would rather make more money than spend more on labor. Railroads are in the unique position of having the government break their workers strikes.
Every large company would rather make more money than spend more on labor. Railroads are in the unique position of having the government break their workers strikes.
> minimize the ratio between railroads’ operating costs and their revenues through various cost-cutting and (ostensibly) efficiency-increasing measures.
Maybe this is better than the old way, but I still don’t see it as optimal.
If their target is to profit 10 cents on every $1 in cost, does that mean they wouldn’t take a job that profits 9 cents off a $1 in cost?
As a shareholder, I just care about total profit. If a railroad grew its revenue 3x but halves it’s margin, I’d be as happy as can be, profits just went up 50%. But it’s PSR would look awful.
Maybe this is better than the old way, but I still don’t see it as optimal.
If their target is to profit 10 cents on every $1 in cost, does that mean they wouldn’t take a job that profits 9 cents off a $1 in cost?
As a shareholder, I just care about total profit. If a railroad grew its revenue 3x but halves it’s margin, I’d be as happy as can be, profits just went up 50%. But it’s PSR would look awful.
More money short term. When you make sick employees work, bad shit starts happening.
> That’s a long-winded way of saying: ‘We’d rather make more money than care about the health of our employees.’
I wanted to come here to say the same thing, so I'll quote you instead. Greed over all other things, how swell.
I wanted to come here to say the same thing, so I'll quote you instead. Greed over all other things, how swell.
But they have been saying vaccines save lives while people dying now show the same symptom people had in 2020.
PSR is far more then that, but this author doesn't care to go into that since it detracts from his or her argument.
From wikipedia:
Precision railroading or precision scheduled railroading (PSR) is a concept in freight railroad operations pioneered by E. Hunter Harrison in 1993, and adopted by nearly every North American Class I railroad. It shifts the focus from older practices, such as unit trains, hub and spoke operations and individual car switching at hump yards, to emphasize point-to-point freight car movements on simplified routing networks. Under PSR, freight trains operate on fixed schedules, much like passenger trains, instead of being dispatched whenever a sufficient number of loaded cars are available. In the past, intermodal trains and general merchandise trains operated separately; under PSR they are combined as needed, typically with distributed power. Inventories of freight cars and locomotives are reduced and fewer workers are employed for a given level of traffic. The result is often substantial improvement in railroad operating ratios, and other financial and operating metrics; at the cost of less-reliable service, particularly to smaller customers, long-term capacity issues, increased derailments and other safety risks associated with longer trains, and crew fatigue.
PSR is the reason why half of the US rail fleet is in storage, they are no longer needed. this has significant positive and negative benefits. On the positive side, this includes the environmental impact, on the negative side, it makes US rail systems totally unusable for anyone other then the freight railroads.
Freight railroads (and rail in general) remains one of the most regulated business out there, but the rail companies are aggressively pushing back on new regulations that would address significant problems.
From wikipedia:
Precision railroading or precision scheduled railroading (PSR) is a concept in freight railroad operations pioneered by E. Hunter Harrison in 1993, and adopted by nearly every North American Class I railroad. It shifts the focus from older practices, such as unit trains, hub and spoke operations and individual car switching at hump yards, to emphasize point-to-point freight car movements on simplified routing networks. Under PSR, freight trains operate on fixed schedules, much like passenger trains, instead of being dispatched whenever a sufficient number of loaded cars are available. In the past, intermodal trains and general merchandise trains operated separately; under PSR they are combined as needed, typically with distributed power. Inventories of freight cars and locomotives are reduced and fewer workers are employed for a given level of traffic. The result is often substantial improvement in railroad operating ratios, and other financial and operating metrics; at the cost of less-reliable service, particularly to smaller customers, long-term capacity issues, increased derailments and other safety risks associated with longer trains, and crew fatigue.
PSR is the reason why half of the US rail fleet is in storage, they are no longer needed. this has significant positive and negative benefits. On the positive side, this includes the environmental impact, on the negative side, it makes US rail systems totally unusable for anyone other then the freight railroads.
Freight railroads (and rail in general) remains one of the most regulated business out there, but the rail companies are aggressively pushing back on new regulations that would address significant problems.
Paid leave doesn't prevent the railroads from doing PSR, it just makes it more expensive. Right now, they're pushing the cost onto the workers, and also the public, since sick workers ultimately burden the health care system and there are safety risks in having sick workers operating trains. This makes PSR look more efficient than it actually is for the economy at large.
As a matter of public policy, we should make companies bear the true costs of their business and have those costs reflected in their pricing, rather than foist those costs on the public under the table and off the books.
As a matter of public policy, we should make companies bear the true costs of their business and have those costs reflected in their pricing, rather than foist those costs on the public under the table and off the books.
>>The result is often substantial improvement in railroad operating ratios, and other financial and operating metrics; at the cost of less-reliable service, particularly to smaller customers, long-term capacity issues, increased derailments and other safety risks associated with longer trains, and crew fatigue.
So it makes the companies more money at the expense of everything else and you think that detracts from the OPs point?
So it makes the companies more money at the expense of everything else and you think that detracts from the OPs point?
Freight railroads are highly regulated in the same sense that police departments are highly regulated. There are lots of rules that apply, but they generally decided to make (or accept) those rules themselves. And the entrenched players make it almost entirely impossible for outside forces to enact change on the system as a whole.
Your comment is accurate, I just want to put this here as an analogy to help people in case they read your comment as a defense of PSR or the rail industry as a whole.
Your comment is accurate, I just want to put this here as an analogy to help people in case they read your comment as a defense of PSR or the rail industry as a whole.
Rail companies are getting the blame here, but the real problem is that paid leave isn't a statutory employment right protected by law. Here in the UK full time employees are entitled to 28 day paid annual leave, although I have work for companies which offer more, while pay is seperate.
Yeah, coming from a country with strong labour laws, it's mind boggling that this is legal in the US. I think the realist view has to be that the market ain't ever going to fix it, companies are always going to try to get away with as much as they can, and the people have to force the Government to bring in minimum standards.
There's no market for natural monopolies.
Yeah, coming from a country with strong labour laws, it's mind boggling that this is legal in the US.
I’m also American and I have no idea what you mean about the Zodiac Killer[0].
Is that a nickname for some politician you don’t like, or is an actual serial killer complaining about the president and it’s relevant because… I guess because we weren’t expecting to hear from him?
Help an expat out here!
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer
Is that a nickname for some politician you don’t like, or is an actual serial killer complaining about the president and it’s relevant because… I guess because we weren’t expecting to hear from him?
Help an expat out here!
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_Killer
The market is perfectly capable of fixing the problem. The employees should quit, strike, or slowdown work until their employers give them what they want.
> should quit, strike, or slowdown work
I'm not sure how it goes down in the USA, but here in Canada, federal transport workers are de facto prohibited from striking or other job action. Every time they go on strike, the next day the government passes legislation declaring the strike illegal because they are essential workers and a disruption poses a threat to infrastructure of national interest, and a new binding labour contract is imposed on the workers. The only legal option is to quit. (But you can't even encourage your coworkers to quit, too. That amounts to illegal labour agitation.) Air traffic control, port workers, railway workers, etc. get this treatment. They have no right to strike, in practice.
Edit: a quick Google search suggests it's same situation in the USA:
> The House has passed a resolution 290-137 that would force unions to accept a tentative agreement reached earlier this year between railroad managers and their workers and make an imminent strike illegal.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-rai...
I'm not sure how it goes down in the USA, but here in Canada, federal transport workers are de facto prohibited from striking or other job action. Every time they go on strike, the next day the government passes legislation declaring the strike illegal because they are essential workers and a disruption poses a threat to infrastructure of national interest, and a new binding labour contract is imposed on the workers. The only legal option is to quit. (But you can't even encourage your coworkers to quit, too. That amounts to illegal labour agitation.) Air traffic control, port workers, railway workers, etc. get this treatment. They have no right to strike, in practice.
Edit: a quick Google search suggests it's same situation in the USA:
> The House has passed a resolution 290-137 that would force unions to accept a tentative agreement reached earlier this year between railroad managers and their workers and make an imminent strike illegal.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-rai...
"illegal"
Given the level of corruption we live with today, that term packs an increasingly weak punch as labor continues to see completely unacceptable work arrangements.
What will eventually happen is they will strike anyway. It plays out in courts and a lot of people get harmed.
That same corruption will be the source of blame placed on labor.
It will eventually be on all of us to reject that proposition, stand up for these people and insist on reasonable and prudent labor arrangements. Yes, this means shit costs a bit more. So what?
The clowns abusing their labor could always give a little margin back too. Think they will? Nope. Not willingly. Not one cent.
Given the level of corruption we live with today, that term packs an increasingly weak punch as labor continues to see completely unacceptable work arrangements.
What will eventually happen is they will strike anyway. It plays out in courts and a lot of people get harmed.
That same corruption will be the source of blame placed on labor.
It will eventually be on all of us to reject that proposition, stand up for these people and insist on reasonable and prudent labor arrangements. Yes, this means shit costs a bit more. So what?
The clowns abusing their labor could always give a little margin back too. Think they will? Nope. Not willingly. Not one cent.
If the annual tax forms are any indication railroad workers in the US have all sorts of separate rules and whatnot. In the US the right to strike is something that can be bargained in most industries which is why, in the Bay Area, BART workers can and have struck while Muni workers resort to "wildcat strikes". Muni workers bargained away their right to strike in exchange for something I've since forgotten. As far as port workers, they are not prohibited from work action. The ILWU (the dominant West Coast longshoreman union) has a loooooooong history of work action to support various political causes from anti-war to police brutality. Before the sanctions kicked in ILWU refused to unload cargo from Russian ships in solidarity with Ukraine.
Realistically the rail workers almost certainly don't need to strike to cause pain. They can likely slow things down dramatically by following rules and regs to the letter. Perhaps we'll start to see infrastructure sabotaged. Maybe dockworkers will refuse to handle rail cargo. Maybe Teamsters will refuse to do last mile for rail cargo. Who knows.
Realistically the rail workers almost certainly don't need to strike to cause pain. They can likely slow things down dramatically by following rules and regs to the letter. Perhaps we'll start to see infrastructure sabotaged. Maybe dockworkers will refuse to handle rail cargo. Maybe Teamsters will refuse to do last mile for rail cargo. Who knows.
> The employees should quit, strike, or slowdown work
That assumes a situation where workers are able to do these things. Sure, in theory everyone could quit, but then they would need another way to earn money.
If employers know that their employees cannot afford to quit or risk losing their job, the whole "the market will fix it" theory falls flat, since there is no market.
Not sure how if this is the case for railroad workers.
That assumes a situation where workers are able to do these things. Sure, in theory everyone could quit, but then they would need another way to earn money.
If employers know that their employees cannot afford to quit or risk losing their job, the whole "the market will fix it" theory falls flat, since there is no market.
Not sure how if this is the case for railroad workers.
Or the workers could slowdown if they can't afford to quit. E.g. the workers could say that train cars are going to be limited to X in length and a sympathetic worker would just detach any cars past X. So long as the workers had enough solidarity to pull off doing this anonymously - or similar acts of resistance, I don't see how this would fail to solve the problem.
The workers could decide to stop doing precision train scheduling (or whatever it was called). They could force their employer to give them concessions. If you're saying the workers can't afford to quit or resist then you're saying they have to accept whatever they are given.
The workers could decide to stop doing precision train scheduling (or whatever it was called). They could force their employer to give them concessions. If you're saying the workers can't afford to quit or resist then you're saying they have to accept whatever they are given.
Another possible causal factor is just that labor is weak in the US, and thus is unable to win sick days from their employers AND is unable to convince congress to pass universal sick days either. If that’s the case (I’m biased to say yes) these rail workers really need to strike. Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it.
> Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it.
But also only “blue” led states have minimum required paid sick laws, so at least they are trying. Given the option between red and blue, it seems obvious which one to support if you support paid leave for all.
But also only “blue” led states have minimum required paid sick laws, so at least they are trying. Given the option between red and blue, it seems obvious which one to support if you support paid leave for all.
The proposal to add seven sick days passed the House and got a majority in the Senate, mostly (though not quite exclusively) ‘blues’. It’s not who unions are voting for that’s the problem, it’s the filibuster.
The "blues" created the legislation & forced the workers to accept a shitty contract with no sick days. They could easily have refused to vote for it and let the strike happen w/o real sick days.
> They could easily have refused to vote for it and let the strike happen w/o real sick days.
No they could not. That would lead to economic catastrophe worse than march/april 2020. Dems would get swept next election and the workers wouldn't even win because dems would be forced to pass this exact law within a week of the strike starting. The government can't let 100,000 unrelated people lose their jobs, and they really can't let grocery stores run out of stuff or coal plants run out of coal causing blackouts.
No they could not. That would lead to economic catastrophe worse than march/april 2020. Dems would get swept next election and the workers wouldn't even win because dems would be forced to pass this exact law within a week of the strike starting. The government can't let 100,000 unrelated people lose their jobs, and they really can't let grocery stores run out of stuff or coal plants run out of coal causing blackouts.
Do they not have the option of forcing the railroads to give in on the sick leave issue? Did not "Team Blue" as in the Biden administration arrange this set of trade offs in the first place in the agreement which some of the most affected (screwed) workers are rejecting?
The bill that would give the workers 7 sick days only got 52 votes in the senate. Needs 60 to overcome the filibuster
Team Blue had the complete authority to render the filibuster moot. We the people granted them more than enough power to do what we want done.
Fact is they hid behind the parliamentarian, insisted on bipartisan legislation as a priority and then proceeded to cede the power granted to make that excuse a reality today.
Personally, I reject it all and know damn well this could all play out differently and it doesn't because ordinary people are just not a priority.
Fact is they hid behind the parliamentarian, insisted on bipartisan legislation as a priority and then proceeded to cede the power granted to make that excuse a reality today.
Personally, I reject it all and know damn well this could all play out differently and it doesn't because ordinary people are just not a priority.
Team Blue could in theory end the filibuster today if they dragged in the five MIA Senate Democrats who have not been voting on these measures and got Harris to break the tie.
As you say, they have their reasons for keeping it.
As you say, they have their reasons for keeping it.
How convenient Team Pelosi split the issues into two bills. This result is to no credit of either party; as I've been commenting elsewhere, both hate this segment of the population.
it wouldn't have passed if it was just one bill. Republicans have no problem allowing a strike since democrats will take the blame for the economic fallout.
You know this how? And somehow the House couldn't have first tried a bill with both, then split them out?
Your claim would be more useful if you pointed out the vote was 52-43; with no great effort six Republicans voted for it, five Democrats are AWOL and Manchin for some reason I can't imagine voted against it.
The Senate also voted 26-69 against 60 more days of negotiations.
Your claim would be more useful if you pointed out the vote was 52-43; with no great effort six Republicans voted for it, five Democrats are AWOL and Manchin for some reason I can't imagine voted against it.
The Senate also voted 26-69 against 60 more days of negotiations.
That would require courage and long-term thinking. As of now, this problem has just been punted, while the industry continues to hemorrhage workers
[deleted]
If the Democrats had wanted the paid sick days to pass, they would have bundled it with the bill forcing the railway workers to accept the contract, making it all or nothing. Splitting it off was just a way of killing it without taking responsibility.
This would be a more reasonable critique if the Democrats had not been the minority party in the US Senate from 2012-2020. For the last 2 years they only have 51-50 tie breaking lead in the Senate which give a very slim margin to get anything done. I'm sure the Democrats could do more but it is a bit unfair to blame them for the actions/inactions of their (frequently more powerful) rivals.
The Democrats' failure to run good campaigns, always keeping congress teetering between the two corporate parties, is part of their culpability. If they all ran on, for example, abolishing health insurance companies, and won (because the majority of the population actually wants universal health care), and got elected, suddenly they'd be in the awkward position of having to do something that their big donors don't want and not having Republican control of congress as an excuse. The Democratic party is controlled opposition. They allow a sprinkling of 'progressives' in the party because it makes for a better show.
Well, all of the blues voted yes, so its hard to say that red is the solution for these workers
The blues also put forward the paid sick leave as a separate bill rather than putting them together. That's no coincidence, but a political strategy.
If I understand correctly, the blues also had some hand in negotiating the one-sick-day contract that the union members rejected. Biden at least claimed some credit for that, IIRC.
It's seem like such a far reaching issue that I'm surprised it hasn't triggered a general strike.
A general strike is illegal in the United States. The US government, under the control of wealthy capitalists, has ensured that capital's interests are protected in law to the detriment of the workers who actually create value.
> Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops.
Labor in the US is weak by design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
> Among the practices prohibited by the Taft–Hartley act are jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. The amendments also allowed states to enact right-to-work laws banning union shops.
Labor in the US is weak by design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft%E2%80%93Hartley_Act
> A general strike is illegal in the United States.
What're they going to do, imprison the masses? Illegal doesn't mean much without realistic consequences.
What're they going to do, imprison the masses? Illegal doesn't mean much without realistic consequences.
There are a lot of potential consequences. A look at US labor history shows that mass arrests are possible (one of the first uses of aerial bombing was used to put down a miners' strike at Blair Mountain in the US. So, much worse than mass arrests are possible).
But, usually the ruling class + capitalist class targeted those they identified as labor leaders (often with bogus charges-- even without evidence, these often ended in convictions. With some of these convictions resulting in the executions of innocent people).
But, just firing all workers who participate as was done in the 1980s when air traffic controllers attempted a strike would likely be sufficient to scare the working class back into compliance.
Or, for a larger action, you could punish the entire working class by sharply raising interest rates and inducing a recession. With the resulting large supply of unemployed/underemployed workers, labor will be too weak to make demands.
But, usually the ruling class + capitalist class targeted those they identified as labor leaders (often with bogus charges-- even without evidence, these often ended in convictions. With some of these convictions resulting in the executions of innocent people).
But, just firing all workers who participate as was done in the 1980s when air traffic controllers attempted a strike would likely be sufficient to scare the working class back into compliance.
Or, for a larger action, you could punish the entire working class by sharply raising interest rates and inducing a recession. With the resulting large supply of unemployed/underemployed workers, labor will be too weak to make demands.
That seems like an obvious First Amendment violation given the economic activity = speech precedent from Citizen's United.
I would support eliminating both the anti-general strike and anti-collusion laws. It seems unfair to ban collusion by capital but not by labor.
>Voting for blues obviously isn’t cutting it.
Agree, and furthermore, I'd argue that the blue "Third Way"[1] ushered in by Bill Clinton in the US is what hugely screwed labor, and 20 years later leads to the election of DJT.
Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that? There are multiple ways to avoid the strike; I don't understand why this has to be on ownership's terms. Long term, (or at least in 2024, which is about as long term as we get in American politics anymore) this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
Agree, and furthermore, I'd argue that the blue "Third Way"[1] ushered in by Bill Clinton in the US is what hugely screwed labor, and 20 years later leads to the election of DJT.
Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that? There are multiple ways to avoid the strike; I don't understand why this has to be on ownership's terms. Long term, (or at least in 2024, which is about as long term as we get in American politics anymore) this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
This is like blaming the abused wife for not helping her husband to stop abusing her.
Party of voting against the majority self interests will continue to vote against the majority's self interests.
Party of voting against the majority self interests will continue to vote against the majority's self interests.
> Long term, (or at least in 2024, which is about as long term as we get in American politics anymore) this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team.
but they are those who are voting those proposals down.
>Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that?
because they need 60 votes in senate and obviously don't have them.
I just don't understand how you can rationally reconcile party A voting against those proposals, blaming party B for not passing it, and claiming that party A is for those proposals. It's some weird doublethink.
but they are those who are voting those proposals down.
>Why can't Biden/congress make the agreement that the unions want and ratify that?
because they need 60 votes in senate and obviously don't have them.
I just don't understand how you can rationally reconcile party A voting against those proposals, blaming party B for not passing it, and claiming that party A is for those proposals. It's some weird doublethink.
> I just don't understand how you can rationally reconcile party A voting against those proposals, blaming party B for not passing it, and claiming that party A is for those proposals. It's some weird doublethink.
It's exactly the same right-wing doublethink that spurs budget cuts and justifies the cuts by pointing out how ineffective government is. Anyone promulgating such notions is either a sucker or dishonest.
It's exactly the same right-wing doublethink that spurs budget cuts and justifies the cuts by pointing out how ineffective government is. Anyone promulgating such notions is either a sucker or dishonest.
Biden doesn't have to sign it in its broken form.
"this is going to let team Red claim to be the pro-worker team"
Nobody sane will believe them; while I believe the start of this was when the New Left captured "Team Blue" in the 1970s and blue collar workers famously became part of the Reagan coalition (and worked with him against the Soviet Union, particularly in Poland), the GOP establishment hates this part of its base.
Repeating part of another comment which in general is a repeat of all of this:
A great deal of Trump's otherwise inexplicable popularity is that he's a 1970s NYC Democrat just like Reagan in the 1980s was a self-described FDR Democrat and he doesn't hate these people. Doesn't care or do much for them, but this is a palpable difference from the GOPe.
Nobody sane will believe them; while I believe the start of this was when the New Left captured "Team Blue" in the 1970s and blue collar workers famously became part of the Reagan coalition (and worked with him against the Soviet Union, particularly in Poland), the GOP establishment hates this part of its base.
Repeating part of another comment which in general is a repeat of all of this:
A great deal of Trump's otherwise inexplicable popularity is that he's a 1970s NYC Democrat just like Reagan in the 1980s was a self-described FDR Democrat and he doesn't hate these people. Doesn't care or do much for them, but this is a palpable difference from the GOPe.
> Nobody sane will believe them
Those blue collar Reagan Democrats that you're talking about are the ones that believe that. Same people more or less.
That is why Trump did well, he appeared to them to be a pro-worker Republican in the 2016 campaign and they voted for him.
While anti-communism may have been more impactful in the 70s, the Democrats being solid pro-big-business for the past 30 years has convinced a lot of people to vote Republican since they'll get low taxes and the freedom to do whatever they want personally. You may claim they're not sane or they're stupid, but that doesn't win their votes, and they're not interested in long-winded explanations of what Democrats are providing for them at the margins while yelling at them that they're racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
If the Democrats were more pro-labor across the board and the message was simply "here is universal health care / child care / college and strong labor regulations for everyone" then there would be a real blue wave.
Those blue collar Reagan Democrats that you're talking about are the ones that believe that. Same people more or less.
That is why Trump did well, he appeared to them to be a pro-worker Republican in the 2016 campaign and they voted for him.
While anti-communism may have been more impactful in the 70s, the Democrats being solid pro-big-business for the past 30 years has convinced a lot of people to vote Republican since they'll get low taxes and the freedom to do whatever they want personally. You may claim they're not sane or they're stupid, but that doesn't win their votes, and they're not interested in long-winded explanations of what Democrats are providing for them at the margins while yelling at them that they're racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
If the Democrats were more pro-labor across the board and the message was simply "here is universal health care / child care / college and strong labor regulations for everyone" then there would be a real blue wave.
And yet you'd have a really tough time finding a white collar gig where paid leave wasn't a bog-standard part of the package. So nah, rail companies are getting caught out because they are absolutely fucking around with this.
Yes but now they can't change because the first one to do this becomes uncompetitive, the only way to introduce this in a fair way that otherwise maintains market competition is to introduce a rule that applies to all the companies in the market that says you must offer paid sick leave.
Edit: A more extreme example; there is a rule that says airlines mustn't make pilots work more than a certain number of hours without a rest period. This rule applies to all airlines. This rule was introduced to reduce the number of planes crashed by tired pilots.
Edit: A more extreme example; there is a rule that says airlines mustn't make pilots work more than a certain number of hours without a rest period. This rule applies to all airlines. This rule was introduced to reduce the number of planes crashed by tired pilots.
Apparently according to this article, it’s a monopoly, so no, they would t be less competitive.
All of the Class 1 railroads are involved in the same bargaining process with the unions. Whatever change to sick day practices happens will apply to all of them.
Do they become uncompetitive or do they suddenly attract all the top talent in their industry because of their new compensation offerings?
Glares in "startup" "untracked pto" where it's white collar and paid leave isn't guaranteed but for the power of the worker.
I take at least a month of unlimited. Many people just assume the world will end if they take a week off
laughs in SV dweebs chasing IPO payouts are a rounding error compared to the rest of the white collar environment Anyone silly enough to sign up for that treadmill is welcome to whatever comes their way, good or bad.
I live on the east coast of the US and have only been to the UK twice, but I was blown away at the efficiency and relative cleanliness of the London and surrounding area rail systems.
Lots of things change when your country is an island the size of Mississippi.
It gets more expensive to import the materials to make railways?
For context: UK software developers are paid 50% less than US developers. I would rather keep my money.
Software developers also get all those benefits. Whenever people talk about how terrible working in the US is- almost none of that applies to software. You get plenty of time off, sick days are a non issue, work remote if you don’t feel like going in, health care insurance is free/cheap and good, etc
What? I had to work for a decade until I had anything close to the benefits offered by default in EU or UK, and even then I had to take a lower paying position to work for a company that offered decent work/life balance.
Even still, I think I had 2 days off when my child was born before I ran out of paid "sick" days and had to go to work.
Even still, I think I had 2 days off when my child was born before I ran out of paid "sick" days and had to go to work.
The rail workers have 4? 5? weeks of paid leave already. The issue at hand is "sick days" i.e. days off on short or no notice.
The right systems term for this is system slack. There isn't enough system slack built into the PSR models to account for real life needs.
Yes, which are clearly important ones: you don’t want someone with an infectious disease to come to work because otherwise they couldn’t pay their mortgage.
They don't have weekends. They have 90 days off, while the average worker have 104, without paid leave.
When you design systems so "efficiently" that there is no slack, you increase their working efficiency, but also their fragility.
We (in America) saw the costs of this "just in time" slackless logistics in the economic reboot as we rebounded from the first waves of COVID: logjams at the ports.
Good system design allows for the absorption of interstitial disruptions.
There's a reason tall buildings sway in the wind; if they were so rigid that they didn't sway, they'd risk breaking when there is strong wind.
We (in America) saw the costs of this "just in time" slackless logistics in the economic reboot as we rebounded from the first waves of COVID: logjams at the ports.
Good system design allows for the absorption of interstitial disruptions.
There's a reason tall buildings sway in the wind; if they were so rigid that they didn't sway, they'd risk breaking when there is strong wind.
I think covid and the silicon shortage has shown us how JIT manufacturing completely falls apart if there's a delay in just one of your components.
When I was in grad school in an analytics program a couple decades ago, JIT was all of the rage among the Ops Management professors. It was gratifying to see one of them actually apologize on social media for the problems wrought in this era by the dissemination of this kind of thinking.
If I remember right (and this may be apocryphal), even Toyota didn't go all-in on JIT manufacturing when they were pioneering it -- they put up strict guidelines (eg: suppliers had to be with in a certain distance and have multi-modal transit links) to try to make the system resilient against known possible disruptions.
The problem is that the opposite of JIT can also "completely fall apart" with potentially even longer delays, plus loss of money.
One thing people don't generally know is that as developed in Japan it's a quality control system. If a jig at a supplier gets out of alignment and parts made with it are out of spec and not noticed until assembly, you're better off with a feedback loop measured in hours instead of months.
COVID and the silicon shortage ... I'm not even sure JIT has any relevance, one of the biggest problems in the US was car makers canceling orders when as you could easily predict from historical plague patterns the demand for cars would go up as people left cities. Demand for a whole bunch of things changed due to the secular changes in the economy like work from home, JIT's shorter feedback loop might even help with that.
But chips are indeed one thing that shouldn't be done in JIT style. They inherently take a long time to make and are relatively easy to test. Toyoda was said to have changed their inventory strategy for them after the disruptions of the earthquake and tsunami.
And then there are disruptions like a fire taking out a fab line, I remember this happening in Japan for embedded type chips. Unlikely any relevant inventory policy would save you from that especially if there's an increase in demand where stockpiling won't save you.
The industry can't even in theory surge old nodes for which the equipment is no longer manufactured. We hear a not uncommon pattern is that they'll just suddenly stop making chips forever because they can no longer fix a critical machine.
One thing people don't generally know is that as developed in Japan it's a quality control system. If a jig at a supplier gets out of alignment and parts made with it are out of spec and not noticed until assembly, you're better off with a feedback loop measured in hours instead of months.
COVID and the silicon shortage ... I'm not even sure JIT has any relevance, one of the biggest problems in the US was car makers canceling orders when as you could easily predict from historical plague patterns the demand for cars would go up as people left cities. Demand for a whole bunch of things changed due to the secular changes in the economy like work from home, JIT's shorter feedback loop might even help with that.
But chips are indeed one thing that shouldn't be done in JIT style. They inherently take a long time to make and are relatively easy to test. Toyoda was said to have changed their inventory strategy for them after the disruptions of the earthquake and tsunami.
And then there are disruptions like a fire taking out a fab line, I remember this happening in Japan for embedded type chips. Unlikely any relevant inventory policy would save you from that especially if there's an increase in demand where stockpiling won't save you.
The industry can't even in theory surge old nodes for which the equipment is no longer manufactured. We hear a not uncommon pattern is that they'll just suddenly stop making chips forever because they can no longer fix a critical machine.
Not being JIT doesn't preclude a supply chain from being fast, though. A fast, but non-JIT supply chain would probably create a lot of excess, but it might be worth it to overcome any bumps in the process.
As p0pcult notes you could not be better named to make such a comment.
You're correct, but that still doesn't address the quality control issue for things like metal bending, unless you add intense $$$ inspection to the process. You still have X amount of inventory of items you haven't yet assembled into cars or whatever for the final test of quality.
OK, for some of the upstream problems you could spend extra money to statistically pick individual items out of a designated stockpile/buffer and assemble them.
But stockpiles work better for stuff that can be tested, like piles of ores and elements or at the complete opposite end chips and electronics that can be tested , and nowadays we have the transistor budgets for self-testing.
You're correct, but that still doesn't address the quality control issue for things like metal bending, unless you add intense $$$ inspection to the process. You still have X amount of inventory of items you haven't yet assembled into cars or whatever for the final test of quality.
OK, for some of the upstream problems you could spend extra money to statistically pick individual items out of a designated stockpile/buffer and assemble them.
But stockpiles work better for stuff that can be tested, like piles of ores and elements or at the complete opposite end chips and electronics that can be tested , and nowadays we have the transistor budgets for self-testing.
If anyone knows fast it's a supercheetah.
I thought everybody learned that JIT is bad after 9/11.
It seems like the More Bad Advice crowd wants to keep living in a fantasy world.
It seems like the More Bad Advice crowd wants to keep living in a fantasy world.
The management consultant comes in, removes slack (increases fragility) and leaves with their fee before shtf.
Interesting; I had not heard that. What specifically about 9/11 do you allege led to the perception that JIT is bad? Looking back, I don't see an obvious connection to either logistics or manufacturing, but I am definitely curious.
It was a while back, but I do remember airlines shut down. I think cargo flights got cancelled.
It was not as bad as the COVID lockdowns, but at the time the changes were pretty drastic.
A lot of overhead was added for security. Now you need ID to get into a lot of places you did not need before. For example: my uncle was a UPS driver, and he said before 9/11 people just saw the uniform and waved him through. Bottom line, I think 9/11 showed there was no slack capacity, and a lot of companies struggled. I guess companies just adjusted to the new reality.
I do remember reading articles/web pages questioning JIT, and stating that if there was more slack capacity adjusting would have been easier, although I cannot think of any specific URLs/writers at the moment.
I am just a software grunt, but I feel like I have seen a similar dynamic in every job/project I have been on. Management keeps yacking about innovation, and pushing more work on us, while dismissing the notion that more time and/or more people would make everyone's lives a lot easier.
It was not as bad as the COVID lockdowns, but at the time the changes were pretty drastic.
A lot of overhead was added for security. Now you need ID to get into a lot of places you did not need before. For example: my uncle was a UPS driver, and he said before 9/11 people just saw the uniform and waved him through. Bottom line, I think 9/11 showed there was no slack capacity, and a lot of companies struggled. I guess companies just adjusted to the new reality.
I do remember reading articles/web pages questioning JIT, and stating that if there was more slack capacity adjusting would have been easier, although I cannot think of any specific URLs/writers at the moment.
I am just a software grunt, but I feel like I have seen a similar dynamic in every job/project I have been on. Management keeps yacking about innovation, and pushing more work on us, while dismissing the notion that more time and/or more people would make everyone's lives a lot easier.
Logjams at the part were a combination of insane regulation, even more restrictive union contracts and lack of slack capacity. For example, there were rules around stack depth, rules about truck loading and unloading, lack of automation and the fact it was simply cheaper to leave boats stacked up.
Agree on the point - we have a huge amount of fragility built into the system, and just - in - time logistics are a huge driver of that.
Agree on the point - we have a huge amount of fragility built into the system, and just - in - time logistics are a huge driver of that.
Hey, something maybe for one here I can shed some light on, for those who want a little more than the article gives. ;)
I am a supervisor on a commuter rail, and in this respect they operate in a similar fashion.
Like any other business, profits are key. Someone figures out staffing. Pretty much cut and dry. For a line from terminal A to B, there is one train per hour in each direction, 48 trains in a day. We need for example a supervisor at each end, and one engineer and conductor per train. So, say that gives us 48 train crews, and 6 supervisors per day. So, we hire 6 supervisors, and 51 train crews - in case someone calls out sick.
What happens if someone calls out sick? A supervisor? We keep costs down there by requiring the on duty supervisor to stay an additional shift. A crew member? We have that extra crew. If we have too many people call out sick, we force on duty crews to stay on overtime. We don't want to be doing that, now do we? That affects the bottom line.
If no crew is available at all, then the train doesn't run. This is also bad, as it upsets the customer.
Running with a "skeleton crew" ensures we are not spending more on labor than we have to. This is because in some markets, paying fewer workers overtime still comes in at less than having more people to whom benefits are paid.
So, the employees are intimidated into coming to work every day.
What the freight railroads are doing here is forcing the employees to use their vacation pay when they are sick to discourage them from calling out sick at all, in effect penalizing them for calling out sick. That vacation you had planned with the family? Either lose a day (which may require you to cancel altogether), or come to work sick. If they have paid sick leave, they'd use it when sick rather than showing up to work.
My agency uses a different tactic, just as effective in the employer's view, but no less exploitative of the employee. When an employee calls out sick, a Special Inspector may be sent to their home to check if they are really sick and at home. If the employee doesn't answer the door (They're sleeping and don't hear the door? Doesn't matter), they're charged with falsely calling out sick, and face suspension or termination.
Edit: This industry can be very time sensitive. It may not seem to you a big deal if say a train is late, but cargo is critical or a passenger gets to work late, that is not a good thing. The shipper may take some action if it happens enough. That passenger may start driving.
I am a supervisor on a commuter rail, and in this respect they operate in a similar fashion.
Like any other business, profits are key. Someone figures out staffing. Pretty much cut and dry. For a line from terminal A to B, there is one train per hour in each direction, 48 trains in a day. We need for example a supervisor at each end, and one engineer and conductor per train. So, say that gives us 48 train crews, and 6 supervisors per day. So, we hire 6 supervisors, and 51 train crews - in case someone calls out sick.
What happens if someone calls out sick? A supervisor? We keep costs down there by requiring the on duty supervisor to stay an additional shift. A crew member? We have that extra crew. If we have too many people call out sick, we force on duty crews to stay on overtime. We don't want to be doing that, now do we? That affects the bottom line.
If no crew is available at all, then the train doesn't run. This is also bad, as it upsets the customer.
Running with a "skeleton crew" ensures we are not spending more on labor than we have to. This is because in some markets, paying fewer workers overtime still comes in at less than having more people to whom benefits are paid.
So, the employees are intimidated into coming to work every day.
What the freight railroads are doing here is forcing the employees to use their vacation pay when they are sick to discourage them from calling out sick at all, in effect penalizing them for calling out sick. That vacation you had planned with the family? Either lose a day (which may require you to cancel altogether), or come to work sick. If they have paid sick leave, they'd use it when sick rather than showing up to work.
My agency uses a different tactic, just as effective in the employer's view, but no less exploitative of the employee. When an employee calls out sick, a Special Inspector may be sent to their home to check if they are really sick and at home. If the employee doesn't answer the door (They're sleeping and don't hear the door? Doesn't matter), they're charged with falsely calling out sick, and face suspension or termination.
Edit: This industry can be very time sensitive. It may not seem to you a big deal if say a train is late, but cargo is critical or a passenger gets to work late, that is not a good thing. The shipper may take some action if it happens enough. That passenger may start driving.
> When an employee calls out sick, a Special Inspector may be sent to their home to check if they are really sick and at home. If the employee doesn't answer the door (They're sleeping and don't hear the door? Doesn't matter), they're charged with falsely calling out sick, and face suspension or termination.
I'll never understand why people think it's alright to infantilise other adults like this. If they're sick and go to the doctor, that doesn't count? If they're sleeping (you know, because they're unwell) _that's_ not ok either? I'm not sure why you're advertising this kind of disrespect like its a genuine alternative.
I'll never understand why people think it's alright to infantilise other adults like this. If they're sick and go to the doctor, that doesn't count? If they're sleeping (you know, because they're unwell) _that's_ not ok either? I'm not sure why you're advertising this kind of disrespect like its a genuine alternative.
My intent was not to advertise this as an alternative, and I do not see how you came to that conclusion. I was pointing out that this is not unique to the freight railroads to intimidate employees into coming to work on a regular basis.
I got a similar implication from the line "My agency uses a different tactic, but just as effective."
To help convey your meaning here, it may be better to change it to "My agency uses a different tactic, but just as exploitative and just as effective."
To help convey your meaning here, it may be better to change it to "My agency uses a different tactic, but just as exploitative and just as effective."
If it helps avoid any further confusion, it shall be done. Thanks for the suggestion.
That's fine, in Italy you get a visit from the "Medico Fiscale". It's confrontational for sure, so you just go to your GP, get a certificate with the prescribed days of rest and attach that to your sick leave notification. Easy
Next door in Austria I've seen employment contracts (from local Mittlestand family owned companies in the automotive sector) where it was specified that "in case of sick leave, the employee agrees to health checks by the company's own GP at the company's expense, even if you already have been written off sick by your own GP." I've never been more disgusted.
Then again, I've also read in the news here of employers hiring private investigators to catch employees fraudulently claiming sick leave, then firing them and suing them claiming back wages paid along with the P.I. fees.
To play the devil's advocate, since sick leaves are costly for businesses here, it probably sucks hard if you have a few employees abusing it heavily to avoid work (even though it's common knowledge that everyone here takes a sick day off work every now and then after a heavy night out partying and drinking or stuff like that).
Then again, I've also read in the news here of employers hiring private investigators to catch employees fraudulently claiming sick leave, then firing them and suing them claiming back wages paid along with the P.I. fees.
To play the devil's advocate, since sick leaves are costly for businesses here, it probably sucks hard if you have a few employees abusing it heavily to avoid work (even though it's common knowledge that everyone here takes a sick day off work every now and then after a heavy night out partying and drinking or stuff like that).
I really don't want to sound like an (unpleasant word) due to the subject, but I always like to see comments like this. Some in America like to portray the image that we are the cesspool of labor relations, and it reminds me we are not alone and there is a lot of work to be done everywhere to improve life.
> Some in America like to portray the image that we are the cesspool of labor relations, and it reminds me we are not alone and there is a lot of work to be done everywhere to improve life.
But you are! Lots of things can be improved in lots of places, but the problems with US labour don't exist and are mind boggling for developed countries. I'd (and I'm willing to bet all those rail workers would too) a potential egregious invasion of privacy to validate I'm really sick in exchange for pretty much unlimited (details vary by country, sometimes after days/weeks/months you're moved to like 60-70% salary) sick time, instead of no sick time at all.
But you are! Lots of things can be improved in lots of places, but the problems with US labour don't exist and are mind boggling for developed countries. I'd (and I'm willing to bet all those rail workers would too) a potential egregious invasion of privacy to validate I'm really sick in exchange for pretty much unlimited (details vary by country, sometimes after days/weeks/months you're moved to like 60-70% salary) sick time, instead of no sick time at all.
>Next door in Austria I've seen employment contracts (from local Mittlestand family owned companies in the automotive sector) where it was specified that "in case of sick leave, the employee agrees to health checks by the company's own GP at the company's expense". I've never been more disgusted.
In Dutch employment contracts this doesn't even have to be specified, this is a general condition applying to all employment contracts. Most companies won't actually send a doctor over until you've been sick some time but they always have the right if you want to continue to receive sick pay.
In Dutch employment contracts this doesn't even have to be specified, this is a general condition applying to all employment contracts. Most companies won't actually send a doctor over until you've been sick some time but they always have the right if you want to continue to receive sick pay.
I've known people (white collar) to call in sick because their days will expire, in places that have lax enforcement policies, so I'm not surprised that some workplaces get draconian especially if it causes someone else to get forced to work to provide coverage.
Sick days aren't part of your compensation, they are more like insurance. So of course they expire. I've had colleagues use a sick day for mental wellness. I've had colleagues use sick days while on vacation, ie food poisoning downroute. I've never had colleagues try and combine sick days with vacation days. That is considered a no-no.
This is why some companies go to "unlimited time off" where they get to take vacation time off the books.
Other companies have vacation/sick time as PTO and they don't distinguish between them at all.
Other companies have vacation/sick time as PTO and they don't distinguish between them at all.
Taking the question literally, the answer is that because in this kind of system there's plenty of incentive to lie to get the maximum number of days of paid leave. So if you're in charge of scheduling employees and you assume that they're self-interested then you would assume that left to their own devices a lot of them would probably lie about being sick. I mean, it's a lot safer assumption than assuming that everyone in the rank-and-file takes some great pride in the success of the company and would never do something morally dubious.
But, in fact, the problem is that employees can also abuse policies. And in a large group of employees, there will be some that do abuse policies.
Employees get draconian not just because they're wanna-be tyrants. They sometimes get draconian because they're tired of being gamed by a subset of their employees.
Employees get draconian not just because they're wanna-be tyrants. They sometimes get draconian because they're tired of being gamed by a subset of their employees.
Yeah, no wonder workers are striking. This is absolutely insane and at some point one has to wonder if creating a good working environment and healthy, happy employees would do the profit line even better than this fascist structure.
I can't speak for the freight railroads, but morale sucks at my agency.
I would be willing to place a wager it's similar at freight, on the subject of time off: no guaranteed holidays. My commuter rail runs 24-7, the only way an employee gets the holiday off is if it falls on their regular day off.
At my railroad a lot of the workers did not have the resources to go to college or get a job with better conditions. So, while morale is low, some take the view "it could be worse." I'm sure you get a lot of that there, too.
I would be willing to place a wager it's similar at freight, on the subject of time off: no guaranteed holidays. My commuter rail runs 24-7, the only way an employee gets the holiday off is if it falls on their regular day off.
At my railroad a lot of the workers did not have the resources to go to college or get a job with better conditions. So, while morale is low, some take the view "it could be worse." I'm sure you get a lot of that there, too.
The companies I've been involved with that had "holiday work" (you have to have it if you're 24/7/365) would give double pay for work during that time, and rarely had to assign someone, as there'd be people up for the extra pay.
I'm surprised you even have drivers available, with those work conditions I'm not sure why anyone would apply
> If no crew is available at all, then the train doesn't run.
Cool, then treat them better before they all walk out.
> If no crew is available at all, then the train doesn't run.
Cool, then treat them better before they all walk out.
> I'm surprised you even have drivers available, with those work conditions I'm not sure why anyone would apply
Because there are many people for whom that job is extremely well-paid compared to other options they have available. And people put up with tons of shitty situations when they don't really feel they have an alternative.
This song from 1928 indicates this is not a new problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-PZFPCs3g
Because there are many people for whom that job is extremely well-paid compared to other options they have available. And people put up with tons of shitty situations when they don't really feel they have an alternative.
This song from 1928 indicates this is not a new problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8-PZFPCs3g
> What the freight railroads are doing here is forcing the employees to use their vacation pay when they are sick to discourage them from calling out sick at all, in effect penalizing them for calling out sick. That vacation you had planned with the family? Either lose a day (which may require you to cancel altogether), or come to work sick. If they have paid sick leave, they'd use it when sick rather than showing up to work.
This is how many (most) jobs work. There is a bank of "Paid Time Off" (PTO) which can be used flexibly for sickness or vacation. The term bank is used purposefully to describe it, since it can be paid out as pay at separation. Many employers also limit the total amount of PTO an employee can accumulate. This is done to control potential liabilities from the bank.
While I don't call for the elimination of sick/PTO/etc, I also recognize that they are essentially irrational, similar to employer sponsored health care as an artifact of tax privileged "fringe benefits" that come with working in a large org. Funds paid to a worker for not working come from funds withheld from the worker when working. Sick/PTO benefit just makes a complicated system on top of the work/pay transaction.
This is how many (most) jobs work. There is a bank of "Paid Time Off" (PTO) which can be used flexibly for sickness or vacation. The term bank is used purposefully to describe it, since it can be paid out as pay at separation. Many employers also limit the total amount of PTO an employee can accumulate. This is done to control potential liabilities from the bank.
While I don't call for the elimination of sick/PTO/etc, I also recognize that they are essentially irrational, similar to employer sponsored health care as an artifact of tax privileged "fringe benefits" that come with working in a large org. Funds paid to a worker for not working come from funds withheld from the worker when working. Sick/PTO benefit just makes a complicated system on top of the work/pay transaction.
> This is how many (most) jobs work.
US jobs, really. The concept of sick days / requiring taking time off from some pool always struck me as a) horribly abusive, b) ripe for employee abuse (sick days when not sick), c) bad for everyone (workers work when sick).
I grew up in Switzerland which doesn't have those. And (to prevent abuse...) you are required to have a doctor's note when sick for more than 3 days. Of course, a bunch of commenters find this kind of requirement abusive... (There is no system that pleases everyone?)
US jobs, really. The concept of sick days / requiring taking time off from some pool always struck me as a) horribly abusive, b) ripe for employee abuse (sick days when not sick), c) bad for everyone (workers work when sick).
I grew up in Switzerland which doesn't have those. And (to prevent abuse...) you are required to have a doctor's note when sick for more than 3 days. Of course, a bunch of commenters find this kind of requirement abusive... (There is no system that pleases everyone?)
At a base level, what is the source for funds paid to a worker when not working (either by choice or illness) other than funds withheld from the worker when working? The question is the same in Switzerland unless there is cave of sick pay gnomes next to the chocolate making ones.
One might say the funding can come out of a different source, a popular go-to is "profit" or government, but all those are downstream from the value created by the worker.
One might say the funding can come out of a different source, a popular go-to is "profit" or government, but all those are downstream from the value created by the worker.
The problem is the scheduling side of things, not the PTO side.
For "knowledge workers" as most of HN is, they can just not show up today and then do today's work tomorrow. But something like a railroad ceases to function at some point and that has severe repercussions.
Now likely the "railroad" problem could be solved with some work, imagine a nation-wide company that handles railroad staffing emergencies, with on-duty employees available to go to a stranded train at a moment's notice. There's some dollar amount this would cost (even if you utilized jets and helicopters, those are just a cost) and it'd work. But that cost is what the railroads don't want to pay, as they could also do the same thing by hiring more employees (and have some percentage of them "idling" at any given time).
For "knowledge workers" as most of HN is, they can just not show up today and then do today's work tomorrow. But something like a railroad ceases to function at some point and that has severe repercussions.
Now likely the "railroad" problem could be solved with some work, imagine a nation-wide company that handles railroad staffing emergencies, with on-duty employees available to go to a stranded train at a moment's notice. There's some dollar amount this would cost (even if you utilized jets and helicopters, those are just a cost) and it'd work. But that cost is what the railroads don't want to pay, as they could also do the same thing by hiring more employees (and have some percentage of them "idling" at any given time).
> But that cost is what the railroads don't want to pay, as they could also do the same thing by hiring more employees (and have some percentage of them "idling" at any given time).
At one point the article mentions "on call" (the correct term is "Extra List") and that's exactly what you describe. You'd have say an engineer, who may be new and has no regular assignment - he'd put in his early months or years "on call." The company can call him at any time, and say "get to XXX, your train will be there." The whole issue is having enough to cover shortages.
At one point the article mentions "on call" (the correct term is "Extra List") and that's exactly what you describe. You'd have say an engineer, who may be new and has no regular assignment - he'd put in his early months or years "on call." The company can call him at any time, and say "get to XXX, your train will be there." The whole issue is having enough to cover shortages.
"The company can call him at any time, and say 'get to XXX, your train will be there.'"
That another part of the problem with bombcar's concept from the viewpoint of the railroad companies, they'd need a lot more people than you might think so a spare could be close enough to "XXX" to get there without throwing off the Orwellian "Precision Scheduling" of this PSR concept.
The train goes when it's built up to an arbitrary number of cars like 150, not at any set time. Since the system is not even designed for trains that long, it would probably generally back up in any give location if a train was too long delayed in leaving. The companies obviously also wouldn't want to pay for "jets and helicopters" to get a spare to XXX really quickly.
That another part of the problem with bombcar's concept from the viewpoint of the railroad companies, they'd need a lot more people than you might think so a spare could be close enough to "XXX" to get there without throwing off the Orwellian "Precision Scheduling" of this PSR concept.
The train goes when it's built up to an arbitrary number of cars like 150, not at any set time. Since the system is not even designed for trains that long, it would probably generally back up in any give location if a train was too long delayed in leaving. The companies obviously also wouldn't want to pay for "jets and helicopters" to get a spare to XXX really quickly.
I'm not sure your staffing problem can solve the whole problem, because there's domain knowledge in how to handle trains in particular sections of track. Speed maximums are probably easy although they do get screwed up in notorious incidents, but there's also things like how to deal with inclines.
Compare to knowledge workers like programmers needing to know the code base.
Compare to knowledge workers like programmers needing to know the code base.
Yeah, you'd have specifics that would have to be worked out, but I bet you could do it (it'd just cost money or time and time is money).
For example, you could run slower trains in general which could help with flattening out domain knowledge.
Or you'd pay for engineers to be trained in some large area, etc.
(This all goes to show that the real underlying problem is running at 99% of capacity with no slack at all available.)
For example, you could run slower trains in general which could help with flattening out domain knowledge.
Or you'd pay for engineers to be trained in some large area, etc.
(This all goes to show that the real underlying problem is running at 99% of capacity with no slack at all available.)
Wow. That's even worse.
I'm not even going to say which is worse, they both suck equally in my view. The problem with articles like this, as they (purposefully, perhaps) make no mention of such employer tactics. So, I guarantee most readers are saying or thinking "greedy union workers."
I think a lot of us are thinking, "why can't we automate this industry even further."
It seems strange to me that thousands of tons of goods and materials can be held up by flu season.
In lieu of more reliable methods of managing freight trains, it sounds like railroads put the full-court press on their employees.
Is there a justification for the railroads' practices? Do rail workers frequently call in sick for BS reasons?
edit: also, thanks for weighing in with your viewpoint. from the outside it's kind of hard to understand the emotions and practices that are driving this story.
It seems strange to me that thousands of tons of goods and materials can be held up by flu season.
In lieu of more reliable methods of managing freight trains, it sounds like railroads put the full-court press on their employees.
Is there a justification for the railroads' practices? Do rail workers frequently call in sick for BS reasons?
edit: also, thanks for weighing in with your viewpoint. from the outside it's kind of hard to understand the emotions and practices that are driving this story.
As an employee and an employer, I like having only one type of paid leave.
It should not matter to the employer why an employee is not working.
If the issue is insufficient time off for illnesses, then the negotiation should be for more paid time off (PTO) in general.
This eliminates all the resources wasted on catching fraudulent use of sick days.
It should not matter to the employer why an employee is not working.
If the issue is insufficient time off for illnesses, then the negotiation should be for more paid time off (PTO) in general.
This eliminates all the resources wasted on catching fraudulent use of sick days.
The one issue here is that in many industries, the use of "vacation days" is, per the labor contract, required to be scheduled in advance. Often quite some time in advance. Which makes use of "vacation days" for unexpected illnesses (went to bed last night and felt fine, woke up this morning to fever and chills) difficult to impossible if the requirement for "advance scheduling" is actually enforced.
In many jobs with separate vacation and sick days, the vacation days still require the "advance notice" for scheduling, but the sick days do not require that one know, days in advance, of an unexpected illness. That gives the employee a few days that can be used for unexpected things, and the employer some assurance that a maximum of X days of unexpected outages will occur per employee.
More often than not, the "only one type of paid leave" comes attached with the "requirement for advance scheduling" of those same days, which does not provide for the unexpected illness situations.
In many jobs with separate vacation and sick days, the vacation days still require the "advance notice" for scheduling, but the sick days do not require that one know, days in advance, of an unexpected illness. That gives the employee a few days that can be used for unexpected things, and the employer some assurance that a maximum of X days of unexpected outages will occur per employee.
More often than not, the "only one type of paid leave" comes attached with the "requirement for advance scheduling" of those same days, which does not provide for the unexpected illness situations.
I agree. My employers over the last couple of decades have just had a general PTO amount. But for that to work, two other things have to go with it: the PTO amount has to be enough time to cover both uses, and there still has to be a mechanism that allows for unplanned time off.
The true cruelty of "no sick days" isn't that employees have to burn vacation days, it's that vacation days have to be scheduled in advance and approved. Neither of those things leave room for sudden illness or injury, and prioritizes company schedule needs over things like scheduling doctor's visits.
The true cruelty of "no sick days" isn't that employees have to burn vacation days, it's that vacation days have to be scheduled in advance and approved. Neither of those things leave room for sudden illness or injury, and prioritizes company schedule needs over things like scheduling doctor's visits.
Perhaps this is solved by requiring all accrued PTO to be paid out, and by requiring a minimum of X number of days where you can call out?
States with sick leave policies have stipulations like these:
https://www.lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/_docs/ReasonableNotice...
States with sick leave policies have stipulations like these:
https://www.lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/_docs/ReasonableNotice...
Where I've worked, this was addressed somewhat loosely. You have PTO. You commit to scheduling time off in advance to the greatest degree you can. The employer commits to accommodating those requests to the greatest degree they can.
If you need to miss work unexpectedly, you do so. The employer just trusts your judgement that it's necessary. If it's going to be more than a day or two, you are expected to talk with your employer and explain what's up -- mostly so the employer can adjust assignments and schedules with a better understanding of what to expect.
Do some employees abuse that? Sure. But, in my experience, that's rare and the people doing it are usually poor workers anyway. They can be handled through whatever the normal review mechanisms are.
This is my most common experience. I don't know how common it actually is, and I'm sure other situations would require different, perhaps more formal, procedures. But it's worked well in the places I've worked.
If you need to miss work unexpectedly, you do so. The employer just trusts your judgement that it's necessary. If it's going to be more than a day or two, you are expected to talk with your employer and explain what's up -- mostly so the employer can adjust assignments and schedules with a better understanding of what to expect.
Do some employees abuse that? Sure. But, in my experience, that's rare and the people doing it are usually poor workers anyway. They can be handled through whatever the normal review mechanisms are.
This is my most common experience. I don't know how common it actually is, and I'm sure other situations would require different, perhaps more formal, procedures. But it's worked well in the places I've worked.
I suppose the employee can opt to take fewer planned vacation days, reserving the balance for unplanned absences. This would require the balance to be rolled over, or the employee compensated at the end of the year or other period, otherwise it would make employees unhappy.
Perhaps a mechanism that allows for unplanned time off, with a little education on how to properly plan PTO to allow for unplanned leave.
Perhaps a mechanism that allows for unplanned time off, with a little education on how to properly plan PTO to allow for unplanned leave.
Seems fine in theory, but the types of leave are different. Vacation can be anticipated and scheduled but sick days cannot. If you mandate a certain number of paid days off, you still need to require that some percentage of those days can be taken with no notice. In other words, you're still making the distinction between sick days and vacation days, you're just not using those labels, which seems unnecessarily confusing.
> When an employee calls out sick, a Special Inspector may be sent to their home to check if they are really sick and at home.
If the label between sick and vacation is meaningful, are "Special Inspectors" needed to ensure people are sick when taking a sick day?
If the label between sick and vacation is meaningful, are "Special Inspectors" needed to ensure people are sick when taking a sick day?
Wouldn't that create an incentive to run your employees so hard they develop health issues? No skin off your back, just get a new employee when the first gets permanently broken. I'm cheeky, but I think that is one of the rationales for having sick leave at all.
How would they run you hard if you have sufficient PTO?
California requires overtime after 8 hours of work per day and on the 7th consecutive day.
If that is not enough, make overtime cost 2x.
Lots of ways to ensure employers do not run employees hard without getting into details of sick days and whatnot.
California requires overtime after 8 hours of work per day and on the 7th consecutive day.
If that is not enough, make overtime cost 2x.
Lots of ways to ensure employers do not run employees hard without getting into details of sick days and whatnot.
Glad you asked in earnest! I was thinking more about work environment, possibly bullying etc etc, anything harsh on the body and mind. Of course your system could be setup to a working level, but you'd need more of other controls or incentives to rectify the kinds of problems which can lead to work related health issues.
The one thing about this that sucks is that if you have a chronic illness, you end up using all your PTO as sick and you get no actual breaks. (Whereas if you run out of sick days you can use FMLA or short term disability without giving up all of your vacation or holidays).
Technically they have PTO, but it has to be scheduled, and may not be approved, a month in advance. Which is unworkable for almost anything.
>When an employee calls out sick, a Special Inspector may be sent to their home to check if they are really sick and at home. If the employee doesn't answer the door (They're sleeping and don't hear the door? Doesn't matter), they're charged with falsely calling out sick, and face suspension or termination.
This is how it works in the military. So shouldn't you provide the same benefits? You can't expect to treat people this way without holding your end of the bargain. Namely with guaranteed job security, full paid benefits, set time off and vacation, clear paths to promotion, etc. etc.
Capitalists want to have their cake and eat it too. There's no concept of a social contract anymore.
This is how it works in the military. So shouldn't you provide the same benefits? You can't expect to treat people this way without holding your end of the bargain. Namely with guaranteed job security, full paid benefits, set time off and vacation, clear paths to promotion, etc. etc.
Capitalists want to have their cake and eat it too. There's no concept of a social contract anymore.
Companies want employees rather than contractors in the sense that they want to have a locked in wage rather than negotiate new contract rates for each contract, but companies want contractors rather than employees because employees get benefits in exchange for their relatively slower growing incomes.
Here, we see the tug of war and companies trying to have it both ways.
Here, we see the tug of war and companies trying to have it both ways.
This seems like a place for a union to do something actually economically useful. Take the burden of dealing with malingers and fakers while providing some rostering flexibility for sick workers.
If you mean unions should become actual corporations that sell the service of organized labor to corporations that want it, I completely agree. If workers want to improve their bargaining position, they need to manage the business risks involved with things like workers getting sick themselves instead of relying on employers to do it. Then those risks can be managed in a way that is fair to workers, because they are being managed by the workers, collectively, as a corporation.
I don't quite get how this is expected to work. Does this somehow avoid a management level of this proposed corporation who are going to be trying to maximize profits at the expense of the employees who are ostensibly in a worse bargaining position? At that point, the decision for the worker is only whether they're working directly for the end-exploiters or just the middle-exploiter.
> Does this somehow avoid a management level of this proposed corporation who are going to be trying to maximize profits at the expense of the employees who are ostensibly in a worse bargaining position?
The corporation that takes the union's role would be owned by the workers; that's the whole point. It would be more like a "worker's cooperative" from that point of view, the way unions as they currently exist are supposed to be, but it would be a corporation from the point of view of other corporations who wanted to hire organized labor, so it would be in a better bargaining position than unionized employees are today. The workers would come to a consensus as a cooperative on things like how the corporation would manage the business risk of unscheduled absences, and then the corporation owned by the workers would sell the service of organized labor to other corporations that wanted it, probably with various different service levels depending on things like how critical unscheduled absences would be, and with higher service levels costing more.
The corporation that takes the union's role would be owned by the workers; that's the whole point. It would be more like a "worker's cooperative" from that point of view, the way unions as they currently exist are supposed to be, but it would be a corporation from the point of view of other corporations who wanted to hire organized labor, so it would be in a better bargaining position than unionized employees are today. The workers would come to a consensus as a cooperative on things like how the corporation would manage the business risk of unscheduled absences, and then the corporation owned by the workers would sell the service of organized labor to other corporations that wanted it, probably with various different service levels depending on things like how critical unscheduled absences would be, and with higher service levels costing more.
Yeah, I don't know why I didn't just think employee-owned. I live half a mile away from a WinCo[0], which has the words "Employee-Owned" in big ol' block letters on it. Thanks for the explanation!
(Though to my knowledge WinCo isn't the friendliest to their employees on the floor when it comes to stock ownership, I can imagine something more fair.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinCo_Foods
(Though to my knowledge WinCo isn't the friendliest to their employees on the floor when it comes to stock ownership, I can imagine something more fair.)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinCo_Foods
Unions already do something economically useful - increase wages. How would you have a consumer economy if no one had any disposable income?
That's shifting where the pie goes. It's not making more pie.
It absolutely is. Workers getting paid more actually spend that money. If you pay more dividends to the Saudi wealth fund or even a local billionaire the economy doesn’t grow as much of that.
Yeah, every study I've seen about economic stimulus indicates it's really, really hard to do better than "give ordinary people more money". That's what you do if you're serious about giving the economy a kick in the ass (and politics and/or bribery don't get in the way). Which makes sense.
Shifting pie can be very useful. Consider the situation: One super rich gets 100 million and 100 ordinary people get 100k. The super rich has an upper limit for expenditure because he is still a human being. However if all 100 ordinary people get extra 10k which is paltry, they will probably spend it all to boost economy.
$$ is useless if not flowed through economy.
$$ is useless if not flowed through economy.
No, we'll just get one fewer super yacht and 100 more nice cars (or whatever). It's not an increase in productivity.
Regardless, that's not really the point. The point is that if the unions want sick days it's perfectly within their capability to provide it since their salaries are quite high.
Regardless, that's not really the point. The point is that if the unions want sick days it's perfectly within their capability to provide it since their salaries are quite high.
And they got it. The president and Congress completely laid down and gave their belly to fucking private equity groups.
Contractors can also be laid off without any fuss with things like the WARN act.
I think most companies know how to get around WARN act or WARN act-like state rules pretty easily now. It's toothless imo.
As I understand, the problem here is that any railroad that behaves reasonably here, will be punished by the markets, and the management that made the decision will likely be replaced.
The solution, as others have pointed out, is that this should be a regulatory requirement rather than negotiated business-by-business.
There are not really any "losers" in such a fix: The workers get a more appealing and reasonable benefit package and life. Managers keep highly paid managing jobs. The businesses keep making large profits, perhaps a tiny sliver less. The stock remains very valuable, whatever variance this causes would likely not even be noticed among the daily swings of the market. Consumers never even notice their new widgets cost pennies more because of a tiny change in freight rates, etc.
Congress did not see what the winning play was, and instead perpetuated the bad situation.
The solution, as others have pointed out, is that this should be a regulatory requirement rather than negotiated business-by-business.
There are not really any "losers" in such a fix: The workers get a more appealing and reasonable benefit package and life. Managers keep highly paid managing jobs. The businesses keep making large profits, perhaps a tiny sliver less. The stock remains very valuable, whatever variance this causes would likely not even be noticed among the daily swings of the market. Consumers never even notice their new widgets cost pennies more because of a tiny change in freight rates, etc.
Congress did not see what the winning play was, and instead perpetuated the bad situation.
"The businesses keep making large profits, perhaps a tiny sliver less."
Absolutely unacceptable (to them). They will fight tooth and nail to prevent any federal action that could harm their bottom line. It's one of the most predictable plays in American politics.
Absolutely unacceptable (to them). They will fight tooth and nail to prevent any federal action that could harm their bottom line. It's one of the most predictable plays in American politics.
I don’t think that’s necessarily the driver here though, from reading the linked article and others. Rather the dynamic is that these railroads have incredibly dispersed ownership, almost entirely by purely financial owners. Management has very little stake. If any of them operates at a slightly less margin than the others, activist investors will pop up and easily get support to replace the management.
But if they all operated at slightly less margin, this dynamic would not occur; and the vast bulk of investors are not going to flee from an otherwise stable and long-term profitable asset class because it becomes a tiny (perhaps not even noticed) increment less lucrative. The vast bulk of investors are not going to march with (financial) pitchforks to Washington about this.
Think of the alternative: that no stockholder in any business would ever tolerate companies offering reasonable sick day policies. That is obviously not true; in most industries, at most companies, there is some kind of sick policy. So we should look at what is unique about this industry for the cause.
But if they all operated at slightly less margin, this dynamic would not occur; and the vast bulk of investors are not going to flee from an otherwise stable and long-term profitable asset class because it becomes a tiny (perhaps not even noticed) increment less lucrative. The vast bulk of investors are not going to march with (financial) pitchforks to Washington about this.
Think of the alternative: that no stockholder in any business would ever tolerate companies offering reasonable sick day policies. That is obviously not true; in most industries, at most companies, there is some kind of sick policy. So we should look at what is unique about this industry for the cause.
Tolerate? Sure, if they have no choice in the matter. Support, almost never. These things are almost always imposed on business by government regulations, or come as the result of capitulation to stave off impending regulation. Yes, we can look at the peculiarities of this industry(which arguably should just be nationalized), but we can't ignore the overwhelming trends in American politics at play here.
>Four of those companies collectively control more than 83 percent of the freight market. And the vast majority of train stations in the U.S. are served by exactly one railroad.
Monopoly behaving like a monopoly. The only real power the employees have in this situation is to leave, especially when the government's interests are also not aligned with employee interests.
Numbers tell us there are 10M open jobs in the US. Obviously leaving the devil you know for the devil you don't is not an easy decision, but I wonder how possible it even is? Are the rail employees in a position in which those 10M open jobs are not viable alternatives for them and how 'real' is the 10M number?
Monopoly behaving like a monopoly. The only real power the employees have in this situation is to leave, especially when the government's interests are also not aligned with employee interests.
Numbers tell us there are 10M open jobs in the US. Obviously leaving the devil you know for the devil you don't is not an easy decision, but I wonder how possible it even is? Are the rail employees in a position in which those 10M open jobs are not viable alternatives for them and how 'real' is the 10M number?
They could all move to construction with minimal, if any, training and be happier for it. People outside of tech don't change jobs very often and are very weary of doing so. Changing jobs is a skill and experience they do not have. I would love to work for the same company for thirty years...just not feasible.
My cousin is a tree guy who runs a crew. He has been with the company more than twenty years and just now started getting a fair cut. They didn't have a choice but to cave to his demands (which were quite modest) because they simply can't run their business without him. They also promised something in the deal that never came through (a $300k piece of equipment to make his job easier).
I had been screaming at him for years that they had no viable business without him and that he should be getting a bigger cut. He just didn't have the business sense to believe it or leverage his power. He got fed up and had a much better offer from a startup and handed in his resignation. They panicked and started pitching better deals to him. Which he took.
My cousin is a tree guy who runs a crew. He has been with the company more than twenty years and just now started getting a fair cut. They didn't have a choice but to cave to his demands (which were quite modest) because they simply can't run their business without him. They also promised something in the deal that never came through (a $300k piece of equipment to make his job easier).
I had been screaming at him for years that they had no viable business without him and that he should be getting a bigger cut. He just didn't have the business sense to believe it or leverage his power. He got fed up and had a much better offer from a startup and handed in his resignation. They panicked and started pitching better deals to him. Which he took.
Difficulty: railroad pensions are some of the only half-decent ones left in the whole country, and a lot of these workers will take a big hit on their retirement for leaving early (years of delay in when the pay-outs start, much smaller amount than if they'd finished at the RR, et c.)
This lock-in give the companies more leeway to abuse the workers if the unions are prevented from functioning to protect them. Which is what's happened thanks to Congress throwing the workers under the bus.
This lock-in give the companies more leeway to abuse the workers if the unions are prevented from functioning to protect them. Which is what's happened thanks to Congress throwing the workers under the bus.
Maybe they don't want to give up good pay at the rail road to make minimum moolah flipping ham burgers at Mac Donald's.
These people are ultra-reliable, proven workers with a lot of skills. They could move to construction for similar or better pay. You don't make any serious coin with the railroad unless you are working overtime. They all work their lives away.
Reliability, proof, and skills aren't of much import if nobody's hiring for the particular version of those things that you have.
This is exactly how you get certain sectors of labor getting rough treatment from the Establishment even though there's a national net labor shortage.
This is exactly how you get certain sectors of labor getting rough treatment from the Establishment even though there's a national net labor shortage.
I doubt that's the only option.
Fuck the shareholders. Strike. Yes, I am absolutely willing to pay more in the short term for things so that people are treated with a little basic human decency.
Moreover, I'm more than happy to pay a little more for things in the long term to ensure that there's enough slack in the system to absorb the shocks that periodically come around.
We've just spent almost three years slowly killing everyone in healthcare because every "inefficiency" in the system has been trimmed to the bone. We've been asking people to shoulder crushing loads to make up for the lack of what is normally excess capacity. We shouldn't need a reminder that all that inefficiency is what adds resilience to the system so soon.
Airlines claim to have learned this. They say they're reducing schedules to more realistically match their ability to absorb hiccups during the holiday travel season. Time will tell, but it seems nobody wants a repeat of last year. If you make flying awful enough, evidently people will find ways to not do it.
Maybe part of the solution is to treat other industries like the banking and finance industries. Banks get periodic stress tests; perhaps it's time to do the same for all of the other systems that we rely on holding together but don't have to think about until they're falling apart under load.
Moreover, I'm more than happy to pay a little more for things in the long term to ensure that there's enough slack in the system to absorb the shocks that periodically come around.
We've just spent almost three years slowly killing everyone in healthcare because every "inefficiency" in the system has been trimmed to the bone. We've been asking people to shoulder crushing loads to make up for the lack of what is normally excess capacity. We shouldn't need a reminder that all that inefficiency is what adds resilience to the system so soon.
Airlines claim to have learned this. They say they're reducing schedules to more realistically match their ability to absorb hiccups during the holiday travel season. Time will tell, but it seems nobody wants a repeat of last year. If you make flying awful enough, evidently people will find ways to not do it.
Maybe part of the solution is to treat other industries like the banking and finance industries. Banks get periodic stress tests; perhaps it's time to do the same for all of the other systems that we rely on holding together but don't have to think about until they're falling apart under load.
Agreed on the strike. Hearing they have 0 sick days (plus penalties for missing) was unbelievable to me. Strike and make it so the rail company shareholders have to live with completely fucking the US economy over their profit margins. And if they do, we all have a duty to point the finger at them.
FYI, many, many millions of people in America that work low paying jobs have zero paid sick days (or paid time off in general).
As evidenced by the fact that there is no federal law about it, and only a handful of states required a small number of paid sick days.
As evidenced by the fact that there is no federal law about it, and only a handful of states required a small number of paid sick days.
Very aware of that (I’m American), so I should have mentioned that it’s surprising to me given their critical & central role in keeping our whole-ass system functioning. ie even these workers get 0.
I think the rules are shocking because these are NOT low paying jobs. These are "good union jobs."
Strike, and turn it into a general strike. Some things in the US need to change, and the formerly convenient routes of legislation or lawsuit are perceived as nonfunctional by a large and growing portion of the population. Clear the constipated logjam of current politics.
Looking forward to the general strike. It will open up some great position for scabs. I'll be moonlighting in your job; sure I'll probably be shit at it but they'll be desperate to fill the seat.
And when the dumbasses crashes the train they’ll realize that that was actually a lot more expensive and wasteful of an option.
But they get PTO days, right? Many people in tech don't have sick days, just PTO days which include vacation, sick, etc. Unless I am missing something.
From the article:
>if such workers wish to recuperate from an illness or make time to see a doctor about a nagging complaint, they need to use vacation time, which must be requested days in advance. In other words, if a worker wants to take time off to recover from the flu, they need to notify their employer of this days before actually catching the virus.
>if such workers wish to recuperate from an illness or make time to see a doctor about a nagging complaint, they need to use vacation time, which must be requested days in advance. In other words, if a worker wants to take time off to recover from the flu, they need to notify their employer of this days before actually catching the virus.
Ahh, you can't really call off sick when you are actually sick. Yeah, that's a problem. There has to be some slack in the system for unscheduled time off. We should have learned that by now.
This is just a political talking point supported by a friendly media. From the union's mouth:
>Q: Why did the railroads reject proposals to add benefits on top of the framework recommended by the PEB?
>A: The request for additional benefits made by the few unions that have not ratified tentative agreements is similar to a proposal which was carefully considered and rejected by President Biden’s Presidential Emergency Board (PEB). It comes weeks after these same unions entered into tentative agreements that included the most generous wage package in almost 50 years of national rail negotiations.
>The health, safety, and wellbeing of rail employees is a top priority for all railroads, and any suggestion that rail workers cannot take time off when sick is easily disproven. Rail employees can and do take time off for sickness and have comprehensive paid sickness benefits starting, depending upon craft, after as few as four days of absence and lasting up to 52 weeks. The structure of these benefits is a function of decades of bargaining where unions have repeatedly agreed that short-term absences would be unpaid in favor of higher compensation for days worked and more generous sickness benefits for longer absences.
https://raillaborfacts.org/news/bargaining-status-faq-2022/
What's happened is that the unions negotiated higher pay for worse benefits. Now some of them are leaning on friendly politicians to get the benefits they traded away back without having to give up the higher pay.
>Q: Why did the railroads reject proposals to add benefits on top of the framework recommended by the PEB?
>A: The request for additional benefits made by the few unions that have not ratified tentative agreements is similar to a proposal which was carefully considered and rejected by President Biden’s Presidential Emergency Board (PEB). It comes weeks after these same unions entered into tentative agreements that included the most generous wage package in almost 50 years of national rail negotiations.
>The health, safety, and wellbeing of rail employees is a top priority for all railroads, and any suggestion that rail workers cannot take time off when sick is easily disproven. Rail employees can and do take time off for sickness and have comprehensive paid sickness benefits starting, depending upon craft, after as few as four days of absence and lasting up to 52 weeks. The structure of these benefits is a function of decades of bargaining where unions have repeatedly agreed that short-term absences would be unpaid in favor of higher compensation for days worked and more generous sickness benefits for longer absences.
https://raillaborfacts.org/news/bargaining-status-faq-2022/
What's happened is that the unions negotiated higher pay for worse benefits. Now some of them are leaning on friendly politicians to get the benefits they traded away back without having to give up the higher pay.
It’s not “from the union’s mouth”! The National Railway Labor Conference represents the railroads, not the workers:
> National Railway Labor Conference (NRLC) is an association of all U.S. Class I freight railroads and many smaller freight and passenger lines.
I can see how you assumed the reverse, given the misleading name, but that tells us something too, doesn’t it?
> National Railway Labor Conference (NRLC) is an association of all U.S. Class I freight railroads and many smaller freight and passenger lines.
I can see how you assumed the reverse, given the misleading name, but that tells us something too, doesn’t it?
Rail Labor Facts is from the NRLC, which is the rail company organization, which is to say that aint from the union's mouth at all.
Ah, they caught me. But really it was just the most convenient cite. The facts are true and can easily be verified from other sources. Most of the rail unions have approved the contract and these machinations are a last ditched effort to get a better deal.
It's also worth looking at which unions ratified it, for instance SMART Yardmasters and Mechanical ratified it, but TD, the branch that is on the train, have not.
BLET - similar story https://ble-t.org/news/split-decision-unions-for-railroad-en...
IBEW? thats the electric workers union they aren't on call 24/365 to drive a train into the middle of nowhere sit for 12 hours then be shuttled to bunkhouse.
TCU, BRC that communications and car maintainance...
ATDA, dispachers
IAM, machinists
NCFO, well the Firemen and Oilers there refers to fixed plants not locomotives, and they've been part of the service industry union for the last 30 years, I don't know who exactly they cover but it's again probably not the engineers/conductors.
All of which is to say that the unions that have ratified the agreement are the ones that aren't being fucked by PTO/sick day shit (which isn't to say unaffected but, not fucked).
BLET - similar story https://ble-t.org/news/split-decision-unions-for-railroad-en...
IBEW? thats the electric workers union they aren't on call 24/365 to drive a train into the middle of nowhere sit for 12 hours then be shuttled to bunkhouse.
TCU, BRC that communications and car maintainance...
ATDA, dispachers
IAM, machinists
NCFO, well the Firemen and Oilers there refers to fixed plants not locomotives, and they've been part of the service industry union for the last 30 years, I don't know who exactly they cover but it's again probably not the engineers/conductors.
All of which is to say that the unions that have ratified the agreement are the ones that aren't being fucked by PTO/sick day shit (which isn't to say unaffected but, not fucked).
>What's happened is that the unions negotiated higher pay for worse benefits. Now some of them are leaning on friendly politicians to get the benefits they traded away back without having to give up the higher pay.
They didn't negotiate anything with the current contract being imposed on them. The contracts have been voted down by membership, hence the union does not agree with the terms.
The group who has "leaned on friendly politicians" is in fact management, who got Biden and the spineless Dems to impose this not-agreed-to contract via legislation.
They didn't negotiate anything with the current contract being imposed on them. The contracts have been voted down by membership, hence the union does not agree with the terms.
The group who has "leaned on friendly politicians" is in fact management, who got Biden and the spineless Dems to impose this not-agreed-to contract via legislation.
Tell me you didn't read my link without telling me you didn't read it.
Make the argument yourself, you're a grown up. How can you describe the negotiations for this contract when the contract has not been agreed upon?
Why is it that only management/ownership gets monotonic increases to their total compensation?
This approach is taken with regulated utilities and telcos as well--natural gas utilities design their systems with enough capacity to serve all firm customers on the expected coldest day of the year (called a "design day") and circuit switched telephone networks were designed to handle the traffic expected on Mother's Day.
Not in NL. Train schedules regularly go haywire whenever a track switch freezes or -- less funnily -- there's a "person collision". The infrastructure is so congested there's no slack; indeed WFH (or remote, perhaps a local professional setting cowork) would do wonders to reduce commute overhead.
This seems to be happening less and less often, though.
ProRail has pretty aggressively been removing most track switches not in regular use, reducing their chance of failure at the cost of not being able to reroute around any issues that do occur.
At the same time they've been replacing busy railway crossings with tunnels, and closing or protecting the 150 or so remaining unprotected crossings. The total number of accidental collisions is down to less than one a week. There's still about 200 suicides a year, but they are also actively trying to prevent those by adjusting the infrastructure.
There are significant issues at the moment, but most of them are at NS and other transporters. They are critically short on personnel, and recruiting new people isn't going very well. They've had to cut the number of trains by about 10% already!
ProRail has pretty aggressively been removing most track switches not in regular use, reducing their chance of failure at the cost of not being able to reroute around any issues that do occur.
At the same time they've been replacing busy railway crossings with tunnels, and closing or protecting the 150 or so remaining unprotected crossings. The total number of accidental collisions is down to less than one a week. There's still about 200 suicides a year, but they are also actively trying to prevent those by adjusting the infrastructure.
There are significant issues at the moment, but most of them are at NS and other transporters. They are critically short on personnel, and recruiting new people isn't going very well. They've had to cut the number of trains by about 10% already!
In Stockholm we're joking that as soon as there's a singe leaf on the tracks in autumn, trains are screwed. Wet leaves on the tracks are no joke, and can be hazardous, but the commuter trains have been quite badly mismanaged
It's a lot faster and cheaper to add more telephone circuits than to build more train tracks and stations. Our infrastructure in many places was just never designed for so many people.
Were they, though?
In my experience calling, text messaging, and WhatsApp has basically always had capacity issues on New Year's Eve, as literally everyone is trying to contact their family members the moment the clock hits twelve. Failed connections/messages are basically expected, and many people even intentionally call earlier or later to avoid this.
In my experience calling, text messaging, and WhatsApp has basically always had capacity issues on New Year's Eve, as literally everyone is trying to contact their family members the moment the clock hits twelve. Failed connections/messages are basically expected, and many people even intentionally call earlier or later to avoid this.
Yes, they were.
Cellular networks and Meta’s app, likely not so much. It is what happens when you regulate monopolies, you can attach performance requirements.
Cellular networks and Meta’s app, likely not so much. It is what happens when you regulate monopolies, you can attach performance requirements.
Except in Texas, of course. But then, one might argue that utilities in Texas aren't meaningfully regulated.
They are, actually. The PUCT has historically done a great job.
But, legislation (outside PUCT) has allowed the utility (generators and transmission/distribution asset owners) to cut the system to the bone and defer maintenance and expansion despite a new city's worth of people (~100k) relocating each month to Texas.
But, legislation (outside PUCT) has allowed the utility (generators and transmission/distribution asset owners) to cut the system to the bone and defer maintenance and expansion despite a new city's worth of people (~100k) relocating each month to Texas.
Texas’s population is not increasing by 100k/month. Sure, people may be flocking there but actual population growth is less than half that rate.
50k per month is still 600k/year! The point remains that the population growth (which is known and anticipated) is not having utility growth to match.
So you're saying that except for the laws the control what PUCT can regulate, regulation is working fine?
I agree with the sentiment of your post. I can absorb a 10% bump in prices without really blinking. But the bottom 50% of Americans cannot.
I wish it was as cut and dry as telling them to just strike, but I don’t think it’s that simple.
I wish it was as cut and dry as telling them to just strike, but I don’t think it’s that simple.
The government could nationalize the railroads. (There's even precedent.)
But instead they get the same treatment the airlines do: public support for private profit.
But instead they get the same treatment the airlines do: public support for private profit.
Between the extremes of doing nothing to maintain the status quo and nationalizing an industry, there are countless options. Many of which would be more realistic, more palatable, and more beneficial. In fact, nationalization is so repulsive to most politicians voters that suggesting it is an effective tactic to squash efforts to create meaningful change. A beneficial suggestion would seek to address issues in a way that could be realistically achieved by balancing competing interests.
> Many of which would be more realistic, more palatable, and more beneficial. In fact, nationalization is so repulsive to most politicians voters that suggesting it is an effective tactic to squash efforts to create meaningful change.
Why though? Railways are a natural monopoly and critical infrastructure, so either they have to be state owned or heavily regulated.
Why though? Railways are a natural monopoly and critical infrastructure, so either they have to be state owned or heavily regulated.
Right, so regulation would be the middle ground between state-owned (nationalized) and unregulated.
Union pacific alone is worth 132 billion dollars. Nationalizing the railroads would probably cost $500 billion and then they would lose money because they'd pay their workers a reasonable amount instead of what is happening now.
It's not the railroad workers' fault that half of Americans can't afford food and basic necessities.
You're not wrong, but policy is often not crafted on just the concept of fairness, but also other considerations like the stability of society.
No, it is crafted on the stability of asset prices to benefit asset owners. If stability of society was the goal, then workers in the US would have a minimum wage tied to CPI, and minimum PTO, etc.
The way events seem to unfold is that asset owners get to take societal stability to the brink to maximize profits, and then non asset owners are the ones forced to blink to prevent societal instability. Aka privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
The way events seem to unfold is that asset owners get to take societal stability to the brink to maximize profits, and then non asset owners are the ones forced to blink to prevent societal instability. Aka privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
I tend to agree. It's unfortunate, but some of the primary ways we use to measure stability and health is strictly economics, both societally and individually.
Maybe (In the US) we need society to fail a little bit. "Christmas to be canceled," as the President likes to say when justifying why the railworkers will have to accept not having sick days.
The bottom 50% can strike and request the share they need to survive the price hike too. All boats rise.
I haven't followed this super closely (as an aside, it's also really discouraging how little I've seen this story talked about. Buried in the newspapers, etc) but am I off base in thinking that gov't could have just sided with the workers and req'd the railroads to give sick days rather than just siding with the RRs and saying "no sick days"?
Wow what a run-on sentence! :P
Wow what a run-on sentence! :P
Short answer: yes.
Longer answer: It is within the federal govt's authority to write the labor agreement from scratch. They could have used the workers' preferred agreement.
In fact, the bill the House of Reps passed did include the seven sick days. The Senate held a vote on whether to include the sick days in the deal; it received a majority of the votes but due to Senate rules (filibuster) that was not enough, and thus the provision failed.
Longer answer: It is within the federal govt's authority to write the labor agreement from scratch. They could have used the workers' preferred agreement.
In fact, the bill the House of Reps passed did include the seven sick days. The Senate held a vote on whether to include the sick days in the deal; it received a majority of the votes but due to Senate rules (filibuster) that was not enough, and thus the provision failed.
The trade off seemed to come down to "sick days for workers" vs. "lower costs for consumers"
The government went with "lower costs for consumers"
Why "mandate on-call employees to cover sick employees" wasn't an option, I don't know.
The government went with "lower costs for consumers"
Why "mandate on-call employees to cover sick employees" wasn't an option, I don't know.
> The trade off seemed to come down to "sick days for workers" vs. "lower costs for consumers"
It doesn't have to raise prices. The costs imposed by the sick days (millions) are absolutely dwarfed by annual profits (billions).
It doesn't have to raise prices. The costs imposed by the sick days (millions) are absolutely dwarfed by annual profits (billions).
I think the issue is that the railroads are running thin crews and extremely tight schedules. So Jim the engineer calling in 3 hours before he is due to commandeer 2,500 tons of freight for 500 miles creates a dire situation that not only delays that train, but throws off the schedule of dozens of other trains.
I'm just hypothesizing here, and I feel like I am missing something since it doesn't seem like having/adding on-call employees was an option.
I'm just hypothesizing here, and I feel like I am missing something since it doesn't seem like having/adding on-call employees was an option.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The railway companies estimate the costs of the sick time to be in the millions. See their official submission to the President here: https://ble-t.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PEB_250_Recomme...
They would have considered everything you mentioned in their cost estimate.
They would have considered everything you mentioned in their cost estimate.
There is a bill that would do just that. Passed the house but then couldn't get past the filibuster even though it had 52 senate votes.
With only 43 votes against, that is 1 Democrat voting against (Manchin for some reason I can't imagine) and 6 Republicans voting for it, we have a deficit of 5 Democrats just not voting. We also see the same deficit in the 26-69 against 60 more days of negotiations.
This situation does not lend itself to pat answers, including why Team Pelosi didn't first try a bill with both provisions combined. This trainwreck (sorry) could be seen coming for weeks, there was plenty of time to try to do the right thing. Except of course for both parties' establishments hating this segment of the population.
This situation does not lend itself to pat answers, including why Team Pelosi didn't first try a bill with both provisions combined. This trainwreck (sorry) could be seen coming for weeks, there was plenty of time to try to do the right thing. Except of course for both parties' establishments hating this segment of the population.
There have already been more than a year of (non)negotiations. Railroads are just waiting for the government to bail them out, more time wouldn't change a thing. They didn't try a combined bill because they can count, and knew it would just be a waste of time that would cause fear in the economy. There was no time for fucking around here
Agreed. This is a huge opportunity to reset employment terms, and not just in this industry. Also, allegedly many current railroad workers started in 2004 and will be eligible to retire in 2024. If we don’t fix this now, we’ll be in a worse position in a year or so. All who can will retire, and recruiting new hires will be even harder. Long term, we probably need to bust up the railroads and create a nationalized and/or worker owned/controlled ownership structure. Else we’ll end up here again eventually.
>2004 and will be eligible to retire in 2024
This isn't a push against your overall point, but I think a larger systemic view is necessary. E.g., maybe the idea of retirement after 20 years is outdated. Or maybe the system needs to be re-thought in terms of how to keep that paradigm funded, particularly in economies with declining birth rates.
This isn't a push against your overall point, but I think a larger systemic view is necessary. E.g., maybe the idea of retirement after 20 years is outdated. Or maybe the system needs to be re-thought in terms of how to keep that paradigm funded, particularly in economies with declining birth rates.
I think the point is, if the current contract without sick time gets pushed through, anyone who can retire soon may hold on until they hit 20 years, even if they’ll still have to work another job. People in the military do this very often. It’s exactly what I would do in their shoes.
There are good reasons retirement at 20 years exists. Jobs that wear out your body and have union support tend to pay better.
We should keep the 20 year option and pay more, give more sick days, and fully fund insurance. Employees should be agents, not cogs.
We should keep the 20 year option and pay more, give more sick days, and fully fund insurance. Employees should be agents, not cogs.
20 years seems very short, though. Retirement age for train drivers in Europe (BE, FR, NL) seems to be around age 60, so that's a good 40 years of work.
Are US railway working conditions really so much worse that people's bodies basically fall apart in half the time?
Are US railway working conditions really so much worse that people's bodies basically fall apart in half the time?
It may be more related to having to work your way up to engineer. I don't know how it works in the US but I could see having to have 10+ years experience in the industry in other jobs before you can become a train driver.
Same thing with airline pilots; they're all older.
Same thing with airline pilots; they're all older.
There’s a couple issues I have with this. The 20 year rule for jobs that “wear out your body” is a blunt heuristic. The military uses this, but it applies to both infantry and admin while they aren’t equal in terms of physical demands. Same goes for civil servant positions etc. it’s a bad measurement.
Secondly, the idea of retirement is an anomaly in human history. And it’s not clear that it’s particularly healthy for the individual or society.
I think there’s an argument to be had that in a productive society, people shouldn’t feel financially insecure. But I’m not sure giving 2 years of retirement for every 1 year of employment is the best way to do that.
Funding better benefits is certainly an option, but hard to do while also keeping costs down. Unfortunately, it seems like Americans prefer a consumerist economy and are addicted to cheap shit.
My personal opinion is that if rail (or air traffic controllers or whatever) are so vital to the economy, we should be willing to treat the workers as such.
Secondly, the idea of retirement is an anomaly in human history. And it’s not clear that it’s particularly healthy for the individual or society.
I think there’s an argument to be had that in a productive society, people shouldn’t feel financially insecure. But I’m not sure giving 2 years of retirement for every 1 year of employment is the best way to do that.
Funding better benefits is certainly an option, but hard to do while also keeping costs down. Unfortunately, it seems like Americans prefer a consumerist economy and are addicted to cheap shit.
My personal opinion is that if rail (or air traffic controllers or whatever) are so vital to the economy, we should be willing to treat the workers as such.
Sounds like you think they should do a job-body-difficulty based means testing on the retirement the unions have fought and won for their members. That would be an excellent way for the bosses to divide-and-conquer the rail workers, diminishing the negotiating power of the unions and ultimately for them to end up with even worse pay and conditions in the future.
Sorry if that sounded too harsh, but I take a dim view of the idea that we - in our well-paid industry with all of the benefits that come with it - have any business suggesting that workers who probably already have less than us will need to make do with less pay/holidays/healthcare/retirement or anything like that
Sorry if that sounded too harsh, but I take a dim view of the idea that we - in our well-paid industry with all of the benefits that come with it - have any business suggesting that workers who probably already have less than us will need to make do with less pay/holidays/healthcare/retirement or anything like that
>means testing on the retirement
It depends. If the primary principle is that retirement is necessary because of the wear-and-tear on one's body, then, yes, we should have some way to gauge that wear-and-tear. It seems odd to me that we can use this as the primary mechanism to justify retirement but also push back on the need to measure it.
As far as this leading to diminishing the collective bargaining of the unions, the unions are in the drivers seat there. I prefer to think of union members as smart enough agents to understand and weigh those ramifications. If it's in their best interest to maintain solidarity, I'd hope they would. But maybe you're right and it plays on short-sightedness inherent in people.
FWIW, I am in favor of giving sick days to the rail employees. It seems a bit absurd not to. I don't know the particulars of the way PSR works, but it seems like the objective function/constraints need tweaking to capture the negative externalities to employees. To me, it's the govt's role to ensure those negative externalities are accounted for and they probably have a number of tools to accomplish this, up to and including regulation.
It depends. If the primary principle is that retirement is necessary because of the wear-and-tear on one's body, then, yes, we should have some way to gauge that wear-and-tear. It seems odd to me that we can use this as the primary mechanism to justify retirement but also push back on the need to measure it.
As far as this leading to diminishing the collective bargaining of the unions, the unions are in the drivers seat there. I prefer to think of union members as smart enough agents to understand and weigh those ramifications. If it's in their best interest to maintain solidarity, I'd hope they would. But maybe you're right and it plays on short-sightedness inherent in people.
FWIW, I am in favor of giving sick days to the rail employees. It seems a bit absurd not to. I don't know the particulars of the way PSR works, but it seems like the objective function/constraints need tweaking to capture the negative externalities to employees. To me, it's the govt's role to ensure those negative externalities are accounted for and they probably have a number of tools to accomplish this, up to and including regulation.
They should absolutely strike. And they're in a good position to do so: my understanding is that, unlike, say, the air traffic controllers' strike in the '80s, there's no supply of trained rail operators ready to be brought in as scabs to keep things going.
If they strike, the trains just won't run.
If they strike, the trains just won't run.
I think the thing congress is worried about is how quickly the entire country devolves to anarchy if the trains stop.
We cancelled all flights in the USA for two days after 9/11 and it really didn't do much of anything major, but Walmart turns over all stock every month or so, and groceries are turned over much faster.
Trains also provide a significant amount of coal still used to fuel power plants.
We cancelled all flights in the USA for two days after 9/11 and it really didn't do much of anything major, but Walmart turns over all stock every month or so, and groceries are turned over much faster.
Trains also provide a significant amount of coal still used to fuel power plants.
Well, then, maybe Congress should mandate paid sick leave for the people running those trains, rather than mandating that those workers should just shut up and deal with it.
[deleted]
Why does it depend on each independent company, instead of just stating it by law? I mean, it seems that everybody across all industries should enjoy the same minimum sick days, not letting companies decide below that, because otherwise some (or most) will decide that number to be zero, as is the case.
Otherwise these people will strike to gain some decency in their labor conditions, but it will be "wasted" effort in the sense that other industries will still lag behind with similar problems. Wouldn't it be better to have a more general change that applies to everybody? Companies are greedy, they'll always try to get as much as possible from their workers, if law allows for it.
(note: not american. I'm just an observer from afar, in an european country where a lot of these worker rights are coded in the law; companies can offer perks above those rights, but never below)
Otherwise these people will strike to gain some decency in their labor conditions, but it will be "wasted" effort in the sense that other industries will still lag behind with similar problems. Wouldn't it be better to have a more general change that applies to everybody? Companies are greedy, they'll always try to get as much as possible from their workers, if law allows for it.
(note: not american. I'm just an observer from afar, in an european country where a lot of these worker rights are coded in the law; companies can offer perks above those rights, but never below)
> Fuck the shareholders. Strike.
It might not remain legal to strike (for this set of workers on this occasion).
On several occasions, Congress has intervened to delay or prohibit strikes. For example, in 1994, Congress passed P.L. 103-380, which extended the final cooling-off period by four months to allow the United Transportation Union and the Soo Line Railroad to continue negotiations. In 1970, P.L. 91-226 imposed a tentative agreement ratified by three unions but rejected by a fourth, similar to H.J.Res. 100.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11966
It might not remain legal to strike (for this set of workers on this occasion).
On several occasions, Congress has intervened to delay or prohibit strikes. For example, in 1994, Congress passed P.L. 103-380, which extended the final cooling-off period by four months to allow the United Transportation Union and the Soo Line Railroad to continue negotiations. In 1970, P.L. 91-226 imposed a tentative agreement ratified by three unions but rejected by a fourth, similar to H.J.Res. 100.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IN/IN11966
Oh, no, I guess they'll just have to do everything as slowly and by the book as possible. Darn.
>>>Fuck the shareholders. Strike. Yes, I am absolutely willing to pay more in the short term for things so that people are treated with a little basic human decency.
Each day the rail industry strikes costs 2 billion dollars.
This type of loss would most certainly have a permanent effect on prices. Given how bad inflation is currently, this would further drive inflation higher. This complicates the decision to strike when people are already having trouble affording basic necessities as it is.
Each day the rail industry strikes costs 2 billion dollars.
This type of loss would most certainly have a permanent effect on prices. Given how bad inflation is currently, this would further drive inflation higher. This complicates the decision to strike when people are already having trouble affording basic necessities as it is.
It is a sick society that can decide that some people can be sacrificed just to make things a bit cheaper.
> This type of loss would most certainly have a permanent effect on prices. Given how bad inflation is currently, this would further drive inflation higher. This complicates the decision to strike when people are already having trouble affording basic necessities as it is.
Sure would. Sounds like the railroad should give sick days or be nationalized.
Sure would. Sounds like the railroad should give sick days or be nationalized.
the rail companies could avoid a strike by agreeing on the sick leave terms and hiring more workers to add slack to the system. why aren’t they to blame? this is a system where people are dying on the job because they can’t take time to see a doctor. where they can’t help out if their family is sick. how this lasted through covid is beyond my imagination,
it is not the worker's responsibility to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of the wider society (such as lowering inflationary pressure by not striking).
By that same logic, it's not the shareholders responsibility to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of larger society. Taking that approach is a prisoners dilemma.
You're right, it's not their responsibility to give up their cushy profits, it's the government's responsibility to ensure its citizens rights are protected, such as their right to strike.
>such as their right to strike.
True, but like all rights, they aren't unlimited. There are both lawful and unlawful strikes and the delineation between the two is sometimes hard to determine.
True, but like all rights, they aren't unlimited. There are both lawful and unlawful strikes and the delineation between the two is sometimes hard to determine.
Total comp by class 1 rail employees is $130k a year [0].
I support their right to strike. It should not be impeded in any form. I also support the right for society to take back all the land they freely gave for use of the railroads, and then to rent it back by imposing a tax against the paycheck of railroad workers equal to whatever gains they made by shutting down freight to the US.
[0] https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/
I support their right to strike. It should not be impeded in any form. I also support the right for society to take back all the land they freely gave for use of the railroads, and then to rent it back by imposing a tax against the paycheck of railroad workers equal to whatever gains they made by shutting down freight to the US.
[0] https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/
Note that is "total compensation" and not salary. That means it's factoring in fringe benefits, like health insurance, time off, retirement, relocation benefits, etc. I'm not saying it should be disregarded, just that it's important to note that distinction for comparison's sake. By comparison, there's some sites online touting $400k average total compensation for SV computer scientists.
More to your point, why would you tax the employees rather than the company that actually has the land easement? The former seems to absolve the shareholders while the latter would likely affect both the shareholders and the employees.
More to your point, why would you tax the employees rather than the company that actually has the land easement? The former seems to absolve the shareholders while the latter would likely affect both the shareholders and the employees.
Labor is neither perfectly elastic nor perfectly in-elastic. Therefore it is fallacious to presume it would absolve the shareholders. Taxes on employment, taxed against the employee, actually get split between the employer and employee as the employer competes on the labor market and is forced to repay some of the tax in the form of elevated pre-tax wages. That is the tax is only nominally only on the employee.
Rail is a near monopoly * (or at least a cartel), so it doesn’t have the same market forces to make that thesis work. There are enormous barriers to entry that prevent much competition, so employees have little market from which to choose. Meaning it shifts the power away from the employee in favor of the employer.
* this is one of the reasons Warren Buffet invested in rail a decade or so ago.
* this is one of the reasons Warren Buffet invested in rail a decade or so ago.
If the workers are so specialized in rail that substitutions from rail to not rail are so poor as to not have an external market as you say, then in turn the workers also have a monopoly as external workers are unable to replace them. If what you say is true I am totally unsympathetic of argumetns against damages being sought from monopolizers who are involved in the shutting down of the rail network for which society gave up its lands.
> If what you say is true I am totally unsympathetic of argumetns against damages being sought from monopolizers who are involved in the shutting down of the rail network for which society gave up its lands.
Great, since the shareholders of these companies are also involved in shutting down the rail network since they refuse to give a humane employment contract, you should be equally unsympathetic to their side. Since all else is equal on who should be blamed for shutting down rail or the economic impact this will have, then should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim?
Great, since the shareholders of these companies are also involved in shutting down the rail network since they refuse to give a humane employment contract, you should be equally unsympathetic to their side. Since all else is equal on who should be blamed for shutting down rail or the economic impact this will have, then should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim?
I'm not talking about collecting damages for ethics violations. I'm talking about real damages as a result of shutdowns. If you want to impose additional damages beyond that for ethics, then sure maybe you can argue about who was more/less ethical.
>then in turn the workers also have a monopoly as external workers are unable to replace them.
This is exactly why a strike is devastating and the point of the talk about Congress intervening. However, if it goes down like the air traffic controllers in the 1980s, their labor monopoly may be broken while the rail monopoly remains intact. So again it creates an asymmetry in power which is why taxing the employees is wrong-headed.
Tax the companies and they will adjust their rates, pay, and dividends. Tax the employees under a monopolistic employment, all you'll do is make the pay absorb the externalities. It becomes just one more way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor.
This is exactly why a strike is devastating and the point of the talk about Congress intervening. However, if it goes down like the air traffic controllers in the 1980s, their labor monopoly may be broken while the rail monopoly remains intact. So again it creates an asymmetry in power which is why taxing the employees is wrong-headed.
Tax the companies and they will adjust their rates, pay, and dividends. Tax the employees under a monopolistic employment, all you'll do is make the pay absorb the externalities. It becomes just one more way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor.
Lets imagine what you say is true. The workers are under "monopolistic employment" asymmetrically and any tax is absorbed by the worker (thus their employment is inelastic with respect to wage). Theorize to me what their wages will go down to if the railroads are the unethical and greedy barons which they no doubt may be.
>way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor.
The strike would socialize the risk of employees/rail companies at the expense of the public who on average are far closer to the poverty line than the median rail worker.
>way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor.
The strike would socialize the risk of employees/rail companies at the expense of the public who on average are far closer to the poverty line than the median rail worker.
Household debt in the U.S. is at 20 year highs. Household savings levels have completely collapsed. Inflation is still ripping.
Clearly the Biden administration understands that these factors, when combined with a huge supply shock caused by a rail strike, would devastate households (the vast majority of which don't earn premium tech salaries - the median household income in the U.S. is $70K).
How many millions would need to go bankrupt before you would reverse your position? This is the calculus being done by Biden's admin.
Clearly the Biden administration understands that these factors, when combined with a huge supply shock caused by a rail strike, would devastate households (the vast majority of which don't earn premium tech salaries - the median household income in the U.S. is $70K).
How many millions would need to go bankrupt before you would reverse your position? This is the calculus being done by Biden's admin.
>Household debt in the U.S. is at 20 year highs.
Isn't the largest share of household debt a home mortgage? Implying that talking about the rail strike is a distraction from the root cause. There are still real consequences to Americans from the rail strike, but (very much like the student debt crisis) it seems like tap dancing around the root cause doesn't really fix the problem.
Isn't the largest share of household debt a home mortgage? Implying that talking about the rail strike is a distraction from the root cause. There are still real consequences to Americans from the rail strike, but (very much like the student debt crisis) it seems like tap dancing around the root cause doesn't really fix the problem.
Perhaps largest in aggregate, but credit card debt has spiked in the last year and is continuing to climb higher, close to a Trillion dollars.
https://www.lendingtree.com/credit-cards/credit-card-debt-st...
A large chunk of the population is clearly dealing with inflation through credit cards. More inflation for them just means more CC debt, and if everyone is getting as many "free balance transfer no interest for the first year" offers in the mail that I am, that's some extra fuel for a crisis.
A large chunk of the population is clearly dealing with inflation through credit cards. More inflation for them just means more CC debt, and if everyone is getting as many "free balance transfer no interest for the first year" offers in the mail that I am, that's some extra fuel for a crisis.
A trillion dollars in credit card debt is about $9k per household, or $5k per adult in the US.
And some percentage of that is paid off each month (but I'm not clear how to determine that - seems it might be 54% of cards but that doesn't answer "of dollars").
And some percentage of that is paid off each month (but I'm not clear how to determine that - seems it might be 54% of cards but that doesn't answer "of dollars").
Both of these can be true. All I’m saying is it makes more sense to focus on the biggest issue for the biggest impact.
Average credit card debt is roughly on par with pre-pandemic levels. Dipping during Covid is probably an artifact of the govt stimulus (speculatively). Without digging further, it’s not clear to me that it’s not a return to normal. If that normal is still bad, my guess is there are more deeply rooted issues.
Average credit card debt is roughly on par with pre-pandemic levels. Dipping during Covid is probably an artifact of the govt stimulus (speculatively). Without digging further, it’s not clear to me that it’s not a return to normal. If that normal is still bad, my guess is there are more deeply rooted issues.
I guess the question is are saving rates low because of mortgages or because of CC debt? I'd tend to lean toward CC debt, as a good chunk of the population doesn't even have a mortgage, the cost is typically fixed, and you don't take out an extra mortgage to pay for 15% inflation in food, you put it on a CC.
CC debt is also far more damaging to household finances, particularly during high inflation as you're just piling ~%20 CC interest rates on top of the inflation rate. So a "return to normal" is going to be far more damaging in 2022/2023 conditions than it would be in 2019 conditions. There's also no indication that CC debt is going to level out, the "normal" in 2019 was an upward spike as it was, and inflation is likely going to continue due to structural factors, which is going to continue to force people to compensate, which likely means an even sharper increase in CC debt.
Getting back to the potential railroad strike, put an extra 10% inflation on top of everything and for many people that's another 30% after they put it on a CC they can't/don't pay off. For many households it would appear we're looking at literally exponentially increasing levels of debt, mostly fueled by CCs and high inflation. That's a crisis.
CC debt is also far more damaging to household finances, particularly during high inflation as you're just piling ~%20 CC interest rates on top of the inflation rate. So a "return to normal" is going to be far more damaging in 2022/2023 conditions than it would be in 2019 conditions. There's also no indication that CC debt is going to level out, the "normal" in 2019 was an upward spike as it was, and inflation is likely going to continue due to structural factors, which is going to continue to force people to compensate, which likely means an even sharper increase in CC debt.
Getting back to the potential railroad strike, put an extra 10% inflation on top of everything and for many people that's another 30% after they put it on a CC they can't/don't pay off. For many households it would appear we're looking at literally exponentially increasing levels of debt, mostly fueled by CCs and high inflation. That's a crisis.
>I'd tend to lean toward CC debt
I think I would lean toward household mortgage. The reason is simple. With a quick (and admittedly superficial) search, the average minimum credit card payment was $110, while the average monthly mortgage or rent payment was $2100. Despite the fact that many people don't have mortgages, they still need a place to live, and you can't decouple rent and home prices. Which is particularly pernicious for renters because their home costs are not fixed. Add to it that many people use their home equity as a revolving credit line and I don't think the costs are as fixed as one might first assume.
I think an underlying issue is that people have an optimism bias in terms of budgeting. They live riiiiight up to their level of income. I think the stat goes back at least a decade, but something like 65% of Americans cannot afford an unforeseen $500 emergency. Some of this is attributable to wage stagnation, but I also think much of it is due to another type of inflation: lifestyle inflation.
I think I would lean toward household mortgage. The reason is simple. With a quick (and admittedly superficial) search, the average minimum credit card payment was $110, while the average monthly mortgage or rent payment was $2100. Despite the fact that many people don't have mortgages, they still need a place to live, and you can't decouple rent and home prices. Which is particularly pernicious for renters because their home costs are not fixed. Add to it that many people use their home equity as a revolving credit line and I don't think the costs are as fixed as one might first assume.
I think an underlying issue is that people have an optimism bias in terms of budgeting. They live riiiiight up to their level of income. I think the stat goes back at least a decade, but something like 65% of Americans cannot afford an unforeseen $500 emergency. Some of this is attributable to wage stagnation, but I also think much of it is due to another type of inflation: lifestyle inflation.
> Household debt in the U.S. is at 20 year highs. Household savings levels have completely collapsed. Inflation is still ripping.
Inflation is largely caused by the same issues driving this rail strike: corporate profits. Maybe Biden should actually tackle directly that rather than continuing to shit on the working class.
Inflation is largely caused by the same issues driving this rail strike: corporate profits. Maybe Biden should actually tackle directly that rather than continuing to shit on the working class.
>Corporate profits
In the social media circle-jerk, yeah. In economist circles that include the advisors consulting on policy, no. Corporations are/have always tried to maximise cost and profits. They didn't suddenly decide to get greedy 18 months ago. "Blaming inflation on corporate profits is like blaming gravity for a plane crash, technically right but totally misguided." Remember, gravity is always trying to crash a plane.
Frankly I will always side with expert opinion over karma farming social media commentary. I know it feels good to blame the shadowy cabal of fat men with a top hats and eye pieces, but it's just not what is going on.
In the social media circle-jerk, yeah. In economist circles that include the advisors consulting on policy, no. Corporations are/have always tried to maximise cost and profits. They didn't suddenly decide to get greedy 18 months ago. "Blaming inflation on corporate profits is like blaming gravity for a plane crash, technically right but totally misguided." Remember, gravity is always trying to crash a plane.
Frankly I will always side with expert opinion over karma farming social media commentary. I know it feels good to blame the shadowy cabal of fat men with a top hats and eye pieces, but it's just not what is going on.
> Corporations are/have always tried to maximise cost and profits. They didn't suddenly decide to get greedy 18 months ago.
Actually they did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6B8e-C8k8#t=10m46s
They exploited the supply chain disruptions to justified price increases that weren't warranted. The data is pretty clear on this point so I don't know what "experts" you're listening to.
Actually they did:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6B8e-C8k8#t=10m46s
They exploited the supply chain disruptions to justified price increases that weren't warranted. The data is pretty clear on this point so I don't know what "experts" you're listening to.
Nothing you stated or linked contradicts what I said. Corporations have always been greedy and will always capitalise on anything that can be used to increase profits. Blaming corporations is a miss because they are acting exactly the way they have always acted, they way they are expected to act, and the way they will act.
Hence the example "It's like blaming gravity for a plane crash". Gravity's behavior is a constant, its something else on the plane that failed.
Hence the example "It's like blaming gravity for a plane crash". Gravity's behavior is a constant, its something else on the plane that failed.
> Nothing you stated or linked contradicts what I said. Corporations have always been greedy and will always capitalise on anything that can be used to increase profits.
My original point was that corporate greed was behind much of the recent inflation and that Biden should tackle recent corporate greed directly if he actually wanted to reduce inflation.
You disagreed because corporations didn't suddenly become greedy and so couldn't be behind recent inflation, and I provided evidence that yes, they are in fact the main cause.
I don't really care whether corporations "suddenly" became greedy or were always greedy, that's entirely beside the point.
My original point was that corporate greed was behind much of the recent inflation and that Biden should tackle recent corporate greed directly if he actually wanted to reduce inflation.
You disagreed because corporations didn't suddenly become greedy and so couldn't be behind recent inflation, and I provided evidence that yes, they are in fact the main cause.
I don't really care whether corporations "suddenly" became greedy or were always greedy, that's entirely beside the point.
Here's a podcast with Rep. Katie Porter where she dives pretty deep on this issue. I'm not sure how much of this is businesses trying to get ahead of inflation and how much of it is pure profit-taking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6B8e-C8k8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6B8e-C8k8
She's exactly who I was thinking of when I wrote that post. Everyone should watch her grilling, here's the timestamp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6B8e-C8k8#t=10m46s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai6B8e-C8k8#t=10m46s
Stories from the US always sound like feudalism stories from long times past.
I took a cross-country round trip on Amtrak once, because I had the time and I wanted to try it out. The entire time I was on the train felt like a time warp back to the 50s/60s. Even the food in the dining car was like something out of a Betty Crocker cookbook.
Now this wasn't terrible, mind you, because I did get to disconnect and enjoy some quiet time in my private room. But it was obvious the whole thing was still run like it had been for decades.
Now this wasn't terrible, mind you, because I did get to disconnect and enjoy some quiet time in my private room. But it was obvious the whole thing was still run like it had been for decades.
I sincerely wish railway workers wildcat the economy into the ground.
Its shocking to see the overall attitude to workers rights in the US. Profits over people, always?
There's always some vocal sociopaths, I mean libertarians who won the career lottery coming out to defend this behavior on here too. Sad it's so internalised that workers should suffer for their employer.
There's always some vocal sociopaths, I mean libertarians who won the career lottery coming out to defend this behavior on here too. Sad it's so internalised that workers should suffer for their employer.
A business doesn't really care about an employee's takehome pay. It cares about the total cost of employing the person. That cost is the employee's salary plus benefits plus payroll taxes.
This means that if benefits are increased, one way or another, that comes out of the employee's paycheck.
Nothing comes for free. The so-called "employer's contribution" to Social Security is actually paid by the employee in the form of a reduced paycheck. The same for the "employer's paid sick leave benefit".
This means that if benefits are increased, one way or another, that comes out of the employee's paycheck.
Nothing comes for free. The so-called "employer's contribution" to Social Security is actually paid by the employee in the form of a reduced paycheck. The same for the "employer's paid sick leave benefit".
>This means that if benefits are increased, one way or another, that comes out of the employee's paycheck.
Or maybe it comes out of stock buybacks.
Or maybe it comes out of stock buybacks.
The article obliquely addresses this. They mention that the company could agree to a 24% pay raise (over time) because using they had already reduced employment by 30%. It's still a net positive.
What they can't do is reduce staffing further if they're already operating with a skeleton crew, which is what additional time off would do. This appears to be one of those cases where efficiency and resilience in a system are at odds.
What they can't do is reduce staffing further if they're already operating with a skeleton crew, which is what additional time off would do. This appears to be one of those cases where efficiency and resilience in a system are at odds.
This "PSR" is just another name for lean staffing, which is one of the biggest cancers on our society right now.
Aggressively cutting staffing levels to the bare minimum required to operate leads very directly to worse service, more disruptions, and more sick and injured workers.
It leads less directly to lower wages, via higher unemployment, a catastrophic loss of institutional memory, as there's rarely anyone in your position when you're hired—you're just expected to figure it all out once you get there, rather than have anyone who can train you.
Lean staffing is devastating the middle and working class, and it needs to die a thousand deaths.
Aggressively cutting staffing levels to the bare minimum required to operate leads very directly to worse service, more disruptions, and more sick and injured workers.
It leads less directly to lower wages, via higher unemployment, a catastrophic loss of institutional memory, as there's rarely anyone in your position when you're hired—you're just expected to figure it all out once you get there, rather than have anyone who can train you.
Lean staffing is devastating the middle and working class, and it needs to die a thousand deaths.
The "reason" is just to make more profits. All industries can adjust to paid leave, certainly railroads can make it too.
It is important to remember that the railroad industry was THE original big money monopoly that made its money exploiting workers. It's just continuing its tradition in the hands of Warren Buffet and similar owners.
It is important to remember that the railroad industry was THE original big money monopoly that made its money exploiting workers. It's just continuing its tradition in the hands of Warren Buffet and similar owners.
From what I gathered from the article the freight industry labor force is hyper optimized through PSR. So any time off creates major disruptions to the service and scheduling.
There are also monopolistic forces driving control of certain tracks, routes, and stations that make deviating from this system hard.
I would think breaking the rail industries monopoly would be a priority to giving the laborers what they want.
There are also monopolistic forces driving control of certain tracks, routes, and stations that make deviating from this system hard.
I would think breaking the rail industries monopoly would be a priority to giving the laborers what they want.
Given what we we've went though with Covid (i.e., "if you're the least bit sick, stay home...") this makes zero sense.
Such double standards don't do well to mend confidence.
That said, I won't be surprised if there are sick outs in the coming weeks. This negotiation might be over for now, but it's not over for good.
Such double standards don't do well to mend confidence.
That said, I won't be surprised if there are sick outs in the coming weeks. This negotiation might be over for now, but it's not over for good.
Can't do a sick out if you don't have sick leave.
I'm holding out hope for a wildcat strike the way this went down. Remember, union negotiators sent this sellout contract for a membership vote, and now it's being imposed by the party that at least pays lip service to labor. People are going to be pissed. Teachers won some solid victories over the past few years doing wildcat strikes against top brass' wishes, and these guys genuinely have the whole economy by the throat.
I'm holding out hope for a wildcat strike the way this went down. Remember, union negotiators sent this sellout contract for a membership vote, and now it's being imposed by the party that at least pays lip service to labor. People are going to be pissed. Teachers won some solid victories over the past few years doing wildcat strikes against top brass' wishes, and these guys genuinely have the whole economy by the throat.
Can't? Nah. It might be a high bar, but it's not impossible to jump over it. I suspect there's enough disgust that one or three days here or there would be worth it to enough of those union members. Also, don't discount other unions - that were able to negotiate sick pay - joining forces. They'll recognize this is not a precedent that favors them and won't wait to push back (if they're wise).
It's also going to be interesting how this plays out during the next election cycle.
It's also going to be interesting how this plays out during the next election cycle.
I heard a report on npr where the workers claimed they were supposed to come to work all throughout the pandemic because they were essential workers and of course they didn't have sick days.
Society (and the authorities/governments) were completely inconsistent with it. I still see people who freak out over COVID but don't care about any other contagion.
People still talk about COVID testing as if it is a "Are You Contagious?" testing. Even medical facilities keep pushing COVID testing even though it doesn't change the diagnosis, treatment, or outcome; even if you test negative for COVID, you could (1) still have COVID, or (2) still have another contagious disease. If you test positive, you could (1) have COVID, (2) have something else similar enough to COVID, or (3) be a false positive.
It's entirely inconsistent and useless. If your sick and you might be contagious, stay home. If your not sick (or sick but not contagious), then you do you.
People still talk about COVID testing as if it is a "Are You Contagious?" testing. Even medical facilities keep pushing COVID testing even though it doesn't change the diagnosis, treatment, or outcome; even if you test negative for COVID, you could (1) still have COVID, or (2) still have another contagious disease. If you test positive, you could (1) have COVID, (2) have something else similar enough to COVID, or (3) be a false positive.
It's entirely inconsistent and useless. If your sick and you might be contagious, stay home. If your not sick (or sick but not contagious), then you do you.
> It's entirely inconsistent and useless.
For some people their infection with covid is going to be mild, and their infection with a cough or cold is going to feel to them similar to covid. But for other people covid is very much more severe than a cough cold.
I have cancer, I'm going through chemo. I must not catch a cold, because it could be really serious. But I really must not catch covid, because it could kill me.
I'm not expecting society to live in lock down to accommodate me, but if an event asks people to do lateral flow testing before attendance, and someone tests and is positive, I'd like them to not attend, or attend with masking and social distancing. I don't want them to attend, not mask, not socially distance, and then near the end of the event say "oh, by the way, I tested positive for covid this morning". I don't attend events because this is a thing that people do.
For some people their infection with covid is going to be mild, and their infection with a cough or cold is going to feel to them similar to covid. But for other people covid is very much more severe than a cough cold.
I have cancer, I'm going through chemo. I must not catch a cold, because it could be really serious. But I really must not catch covid, because it could kill me.
I'm not expecting society to live in lock down to accommodate me, but if an event asks people to do lateral flow testing before attendance, and someone tests and is positive, I'd like them to not attend, or attend with masking and social distancing. I don't want them to attend, not mask, not socially distance, and then near the end of the event say "oh, by the way, I tested positive for covid this morning". I don't attend events because this is a thing that people do.
> Even medical facilities keep pushing COVID testing even though it doesn't change the diagnosis, treatment, or outcome
(X) Doubt
If you're not very sick then sure the treatment isn't going to change much (just fight it off with OTC drugs). But if you actually need any sort of intervention (rare) they'll give you different drugs than say an Ebola infection.
> If your not sick (or sick but not contagious), then you do you.
Unclear how you know if you're not contagious if you don't actually know what you're sick with.
(X) Doubt
If you're not very sick then sure the treatment isn't going to change much (just fight it off with OTC drugs). But if you actually need any sort of intervention (rare) they'll give you different drugs than say an Ebola infection.
> If your not sick (or sick but not contagious), then you do you.
Unclear how you know if you're not contagious if you don't actually know what you're sick with.
> If you're not very sick then sure the treatment isn't going to change much. But if you actually need any sort of intervention (rare) they'll give you different drugs than say an Ebola infection.
That's literally what I just said - medical facilities keep pushing COVID testing even though in 99% of cases, it's not going to be used to modify the diagnosis or treatment. As you said, the other ~1% or less of cases that might make a assist or alter a decision based on information provided by the test is rare, and nor did I say that in that scenario that it shouldn't be done.
> Unclear how you know if you're not contagious if you don't actually know what you're sick with.
There's more than just COVID testing, and some tests can reveal an infection that isn't contagious. For example, many bacterial infections are no longer considered contagious after ~24 hours of antibiotic use [1]. A positive on a bacterial infection can give enough confidence on the risk of being contagious.
However, with a negative COVID test, you could (1) still have COVID, or (2) have another infection that is contagious. Doctors can't assume you have strep throat or a sinus infection from a negative COVID test, but doctors can make a diagnosis based on a positive strep test that you don't have something else based on your symptoms.
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/infections/how-lo...
That's literally what I just said - medical facilities keep pushing COVID testing even though in 99% of cases, it's not going to be used to modify the diagnosis or treatment. As you said, the other ~1% or less of cases that might make a assist or alter a decision based on information provided by the test is rare, and nor did I say that in that scenario that it shouldn't be done.
> Unclear how you know if you're not contagious if you don't actually know what you're sick with.
There's more than just COVID testing, and some tests can reveal an infection that isn't contagious. For example, many bacterial infections are no longer considered contagious after ~24 hours of antibiotic use [1]. A positive on a bacterial infection can give enough confidence on the risk of being contagious.
However, with a negative COVID test, you could (1) still have COVID, or (2) have another infection that is contagious. Doctors can't assume you have strep throat or a sinus infection from a negative COVID test, but doctors can make a diagnosis based on a positive strep test that you don't have something else based on your symptoms.
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/infections/how-lo...
You are correct. COVID is different from other respiratory illness I'm aware of (not a doctor) in that when it gets serious that way it interferes with oxygen intake but not getting rid of CO2. Which drives the breathing reflex so you can get "happy hypoxia," where oxygen blood levels get dangerously, perhaps lethally low and the patient doesn't realize it, especially since hypoxia is insidious.
Another difference perhaps is that the SOP treatment, US, U.K., don't know where else is to give anyone bad off enough to require supplemental oxygen a steroid to suppress the innate immune system.
Another difference perhaps is that the SOP treatment, US, U.K., don't know where else is to give anyone bad off enough to require supplemental oxygen a steroid to suppress the innate immune system.
When I was in NYC a few weeks ago I noticed a plethora of "COVID testing" tents around Manhattan, never did I see anyone actually getting a test there. I can't help but think the employees sitting around and the operators of the testing huts are leeching off government funds in the name of "public health and safety"
It's all for show. Uncle Sam committed monies to the states and the states to the local municipalities. No politician wants to say "We don't need this" and then have people laid off. No politician wants to say "Give us that money back."
This isn't unique to Covid and Covid testing. It's simply much easier to see.
This isn't unique to Covid and Covid testing. It's simply much easier to see.
If railroads are this critical to the US's infrastructure, maybe it shouldn't be privately owned
It is time for the government to step in and do more than force a contract agreement. They need to threaten the Railroad companies and side with America workers. Some suggestions:
- Take back the railroads that the public built and maintained. Then charge commercial rail for the use of them. This is a huge issue since it currently is a major limitation of passenger rail in the US, and once again, having these be public could help spur the necessary improvements for passenger rail.
- Breaking up the railroad monopolies. We've broken up companies before, so there is precedent to do it again.
- Nationalize the railroad companies. This is highly unlikely it will ever happen in the US, but it should be discussed. It could become something similar to the post office.
- Take back the railroads that the public built and maintained. Then charge commercial rail for the use of them. This is a huge issue since it currently is a major limitation of passenger rail in the US, and once again, having these be public could help spur the necessary improvements for passenger rail.
- Breaking up the railroad monopolies. We've broken up companies before, so there is precedent to do it again.
- Nationalize the railroad companies. This is highly unlikely it will ever happen in the US, but it should be discussed. It could become something similar to the post office.
Rail transport should be treated the same as other cargo transportation modes like trucking, airlines, and ships. Government should own the tracks and stations. Private companies should own the vehicles, and pay a fee for using the tracks.
Which politicians will do that? The Democrats are over blue collar labor, have been since the 1970s when the New Left captured the party, and the GOP establishment hates that part of their base.
A great deal of Trump's otherwise inexplicable popularity is that he's a 1970s NYC Democrat just like Reagan in the 1980s was a self-described FDR Democrat and he doesn't hate these people. Doesn't care or do much for them, but this is a palpable difference from the GOPe.
A great deal of Trump's otherwise inexplicable popularity is that he's a 1970s NYC Democrat just like Reagan in the 1980s was a self-described FDR Democrat and he doesn't hate these people. Doesn't care or do much for them, but this is a palpable difference from the GOPe.
The article mentions PSR -- precision scheduled railroading -- or some such as at the core of all this.
Okay, it's a scheduling problem. It's an optimization problem. It's possibly to a significant extent an optimization under uncertainty problem. Oh, and it's an optimization over time problem.
Did my Ph.D. dissertation in one of those, not for trains but for airplanes. Oh, for math majors in the audience, yes, did use Fubini's theorem (the core of the proof that the work really was in a very general sense actually optimal) and measurable selection.
Such problems can be challenging in practice for business operations, for the math, and for the computing.
And, right, the problem is no doubt, oh, I mean, even quite simplified versions of the problem, in NP-complete or if don't like that fact then can be challenging to get even approximately optimal solutions.
But, however look at the complexity of the problem, I'd
Guess: Including a 7 day paid sick leave should be possible to include in the problem.
That is, just because are attacking a challenging optimization problem, there is likely no fundamental or even very important practical reason can't also include as a constraint, feature, property, requirement, whatever, something like 7 days of paid sick leave.
Besides, we're talking about scheduling workers to run freight trains, maybe 100 cars long, with several big Diesel-electric engines, across major parts of the US. Uh, just the Diesel oil costs what? And in comparison for that trip the workers cost what? I'd guess a small fraction of even just the Diesel oil. Then there is the capital cost and maintenance cost of all that equipment. E.g., the track has to be in really good condition or ... don't want even to imagine what the costs could be, i.e., the term train wreck is used broadly as a really big disaster. And just a little maintenance on one of those Diesel-electric engines costs, how many hours of worker pay?
My nose smells more politics than business, applied math, computing, technology, etc.
Okay, it's a scheduling problem. It's an optimization problem. It's possibly to a significant extent an optimization under uncertainty problem. Oh, and it's an optimization over time problem.
Did my Ph.D. dissertation in one of those, not for trains but for airplanes. Oh, for math majors in the audience, yes, did use Fubini's theorem (the core of the proof that the work really was in a very general sense actually optimal) and measurable selection.
Such problems can be challenging in practice for business operations, for the math, and for the computing.
And, right, the problem is no doubt, oh, I mean, even quite simplified versions of the problem, in NP-complete or if don't like that fact then can be challenging to get even approximately optimal solutions.
But, however look at the complexity of the problem, I'd
Guess: Including a 7 day paid sick leave should be possible to include in the problem.
That is, just because are attacking a challenging optimization problem, there is likely no fundamental or even very important practical reason can't also include as a constraint, feature, property, requirement, whatever, something like 7 days of paid sick leave.
Besides, we're talking about scheduling workers to run freight trains, maybe 100 cars long, with several big Diesel-electric engines, across major parts of the US. Uh, just the Diesel oil costs what? And in comparison for that trip the workers cost what? I'd guess a small fraction of even just the Diesel oil. Then there is the capital cost and maintenance cost of all that equipment. E.g., the track has to be in really good condition or ... don't want even to imagine what the costs could be, i.e., the term train wreck is used broadly as a really big disaster. And just a little maintenance on one of those Diesel-electric engines costs, how many hours of worker pay?
My nose smells more politics than business, applied math, computing, technology, etc.
Except PSR isn't a scheduling system. It's a system designed to fuck up the usability of the rails in the US by running gargantuan trains that the system can't possibly handle. It even manages to fuckup traffic & public transport & small towns here in Texas. The at-grade crossings are blocked so long you get backups that stretch for 1/2 a mile or more in small towns.
This is a big issue. In my city some of the neighborhoods were originally steel "company towns". They literally have one entrance/exit into them and it is crossed by a primary railroad track. The trains have gotten so long, that now when they park (almost a mile a way) for hours, they completely block access for people entering or exiting their neighborhood!
And CSX and Norfolk Southern's response is just: "too bad"
And CSX and Norfolk Southern's response is just: "too bad"
Because they can get away with it. That's it. It's a power struggle.
I still find it hard to grasp that the concept of "sick days" even exists in the US. Especially since you get so few vacation days in the US as well.
There is no equivalent here in Germany, if you're sick you're sick and you do get paid (long-term illnesses are handled differently, but that's almost an entirely separate topic). This is really a subject that should be regulated from the top, and not something everyone has to fight for over and over again.
There is no equivalent here in Germany, if you're sick you're sick and you do get paid (long-term illnesses are handled differently, but that's almost an entirely separate topic). This is really a subject that should be regulated from the top, and not something everyone has to fight for over and over again.
Seems like the shareholders FTA aren’t exactly pulling their weight. Why do we need them in the mix, exactly? Do other countries get by without their fingers in the pie?
Something not highlighted:
Trains got longer than the yards they are assembled in and that results in 10-12 extra hours. Now multiply that times the number of trains per Railroad. Result is the real reason why paid leave was not given. Not as a logic way to solve a problem but as a way to avoid solving the problem that would work as workers have the least amount of power in the economic equation.
Trains got longer than the yards they are assembled in and that results in 10-12 extra hours. Now multiply that times the number of trains per Railroad. Result is the real reason why paid leave was not given. Not as a logic way to solve a problem but as a way to avoid solving the problem that would work as workers have the least amount of power in the economic equation.
In the very unlikely event that the US (or any country in a similar situation) were to nationalize the railroads, what would happen to the labor unions and workers' ability to collectively bargain? If the railway were nationalized and the government said "PSR is here to stay, no sick days, it is illegal to strike" or something like that, would this be any different than exactly what is happening now?
Personally, I think nationalization is good for many reasons, but just wondering how government workers collectively bargain, if at all. How does this work with USPS for example?
Personally, I think nationalization is good for many reasons, but just wondering how government workers collectively bargain, if at all. How does this work with USPS for example?
Federal government employees already form unions. If the government took ownership of the railroads, nothing would change in that regard.
In general public-sector unions are more powerful than private sector ones. For example in France where railroads are nationalized, the rail worker unions are ridiculously powerful and the workers have extremely good salaries and benefits—exactly the opposite situation as in the US
This is the same industry that pooh-poohed 2-person crew minimums. There is nothing that would convince them to look out for their workers, or actually be above board on safety considerations.
https://www.railwayage.com/news/fra-issues-crew-size-nprm-aa...
https://www.railwayage.com/news/fra-issues-crew-size-nprm-aa...
Scheduling seems to be the most reasonable (non greed) defence. Surely now we have the tools to schedule and manage staffing in what is actually a quite complex set of constraints, with temporal and geographic inputs.
Can probably also optimise things such that shifts and/or journeys start and end closer to home for workers, less nights on road more overtime / less overtime when people want it etc.
Can probably also optimise things such that shifts and/or journeys start and end closer to home for workers, less nights on road more overtime / less overtime when people want it etc.
This is a hack job of an article. From the first paragraph, “America’s latter-day robber barons can’t comprehend that workers sometimes get sick.
”. Really? So every person with the S&P 500 in their retirement account is a robber baron?
And that was just the first paragraph. The use of similar terms were repeated further in the article.
Read a better article - this one isn’t worth the electrons.
And that was just the first paragraph. The use of similar terms were repeated further in the article.
Read a better article - this one isn’t worth the electrons.
America needs to mimic Europe when it comes to mandatory vacation. Make it subsidized for small businesses. Minimum of 5 days would be a huge start even if it pales significantly in comparison to most of Europe. A more worker friendly nation would probably make us more productive in the long-term.
I hope people get how big of a deal is that the government decided to side so blatantly against the workers
If you're curious about learning more about PSR as it was intended to be implemented, I can't recommend Justin Roczniak's writing (and podcasting) around it. He wrote essentially the same article for the New York Times not too long ago[0], and his longer-form podcast discussion is even better if you have the time[1].
In his telling (and I'm paraphrasing heavily here), PSR — as it was originally designed — was meant to get everything on precise scheduling (surprise), thereby allowing you to better predict when and where you'd need workers well in advance. That would let you better optimize not just your trains but also your workforce. If you have a schedule, you can make optimizations that keep train cars from sitting around, and your workers reap the benefits of a fixed schedule (time off, less on-call time, things like that).
In practice, getting things to run on a schedule often meant capital costs that a of these companies balked at, like upgrades to rail yards and track maintenance to keep things running on schedule. The only real part of P.S.R. that ended up getting adopted, as this article points out, is the optimization part. But without the capital investments, you don't get a precise schedule, nor do you get any of its implied benefits.
Optimizations ended up meaning things like pulling more cars with fewer trains. I don't think the article mentions this in explicit terms, but these longer trains are often a few miles long. This length means the trains don't fit in rail yards, nor do they fit in the sidings that allow Amtrak trains to pass them (which in turn keeps Amtrak trains from running on time). Since trains don't fit in the yards, they have to leave as soon as possible, and since there's no fixed scheduling, "as soon as possible" ends up meaning any time at all with little notice, meaning engineers are on call almost all the time. Plus, when you have a train that's almost 3 miles long, they're more likely to derail on curves, and staff have to walk literal miles to fix problems along the train.
There's a whole lot more to this than I can repeat off-hand on a Friday afternoon, but this issue isn't going to go away. The rail industry is untenable, and given how scared everyone is of a rail strike, it also isn't going away any time soon.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/opinion/business-economic... [1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69A_UCdikE8
In his telling (and I'm paraphrasing heavily here), PSR — as it was originally designed — was meant to get everything on precise scheduling (surprise), thereby allowing you to better predict when and where you'd need workers well in advance. That would let you better optimize not just your trains but also your workforce. If you have a schedule, you can make optimizations that keep train cars from sitting around, and your workers reap the benefits of a fixed schedule (time off, less on-call time, things like that).
In practice, getting things to run on a schedule often meant capital costs that a of these companies balked at, like upgrades to rail yards and track maintenance to keep things running on schedule. The only real part of P.S.R. that ended up getting adopted, as this article points out, is the optimization part. But without the capital investments, you don't get a precise schedule, nor do you get any of its implied benefits.
Optimizations ended up meaning things like pulling more cars with fewer trains. I don't think the article mentions this in explicit terms, but these longer trains are often a few miles long. This length means the trains don't fit in rail yards, nor do they fit in the sidings that allow Amtrak trains to pass them (which in turn keeps Amtrak trains from running on time). Since trains don't fit in the yards, they have to leave as soon as possible, and since there's no fixed scheduling, "as soon as possible" ends up meaning any time at all with little notice, meaning engineers are on call almost all the time. Plus, when you have a train that's almost 3 miles long, they're more likely to derail on curves, and staff have to walk literal miles to fix problems along the train.
There's a whole lot more to this than I can repeat off-hand on a Friday afternoon, but this issue isn't going to go away. The rail industry is untenable, and given how scared everyone is of a rail strike, it also isn't going away any time soon.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/opinion/business-economic... [1]:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69A_UCdikE8
Just make sick days nationally mandatory. Set a baseline of human decency. You want to run a super-optimized rail schedule? Go for it - but humane working conditions are a constraint you MUST satisfy.
This problem does not seem unique to railroads. Any business that depends on human labor to deliver a service would have this problem. Airlines, restaurants, theatre companies. The way to deal with this is to have excess labor available (slack in the system). Are railroad profit margins so small that paying for excess labor will bankrupt them? Maybe labor in the railroad industry is so highly regulated that labor flexibility very expensive to maintain. Railroad pensions are the only private pensions that I know of that are specifically called out in IRS tax forms. That has always seemed odd to me, and is probably some indication of how tightly regulated labor in the railroad business is.
No; railroad profit margins at unhealthy labor levels are so high that trying to pay for healthy levels of labor (i.e. staffing enough to offer sick leave) will lead to hostile takeovers by investors who want higher profit margins rather than healthy labor.
> A decade ago, the activist investor Bill Ackman won a proxy battle at Canadian Pacific and proceeded to replace its management with a team led by Hunter Harrison, the railway executive who’d pioneered P.S.R. After imposing the gospel of “more with less” at Canadian Pacific, Harrison left to spread the good news to the freight giant CSX. At each firm, P.S.R. succeeded at generating higher returns. Pretty soon, major investors in other railroads started calling on their firms to imitate Harrison’s methods. Testifying to the government’s Surface Transportation Board about freight rail’s performance last spring, industry analyst Rick Paterson said, “Lurking in the background is the constant threat of shareholder activism if any of the railroads’ operating ratios become outliers on the high side.”
It could be considered a key defect of American railroads that they are operated as for-profit corporations with public stock listings and shareholders. In such a scenario, so long as profits can be raised, they must be — or else hostile takeovers will be led to do so regardless. America’s government is poorly equipped to combat this with the usual hands-off approaches. They would need to either pass laws guaranteeing sick days, nationalize rail services to protect against hostile takeovers, regulate that rail networks must be operated by (for example) “B Corps”, or other similar steps taken that interfere with corporate sovereignty. Such interference is typically avoided by modern American labor politics, and so here we are.
> A decade ago, the activist investor Bill Ackman won a proxy battle at Canadian Pacific and proceeded to replace its management with a team led by Hunter Harrison, the railway executive who’d pioneered P.S.R. After imposing the gospel of “more with less” at Canadian Pacific, Harrison left to spread the good news to the freight giant CSX. At each firm, P.S.R. succeeded at generating higher returns. Pretty soon, major investors in other railroads started calling on their firms to imitate Harrison’s methods. Testifying to the government’s Surface Transportation Board about freight rail’s performance last spring, industry analyst Rick Paterson said, “Lurking in the background is the constant threat of shareholder activism if any of the railroads’ operating ratios become outliers on the high side.”
It could be considered a key defect of American railroads that they are operated as for-profit corporations with public stock listings and shareholders. In such a scenario, so long as profits can be raised, they must be — or else hostile takeovers will be led to do so regardless. America’s government is poorly equipped to combat this with the usual hands-off approaches. They would need to either pass laws guaranteeing sick days, nationalize rail services to protect against hostile takeovers, regulate that rail networks must be operated by (for example) “B Corps”, or other similar steps taken that interfere with corporate sovereignty. Such interference is typically avoided by modern American labor politics, and so here we are.
Or... they could not interfere in disputes between labor and management, and let those "activist shareholders" eat the losses when they fail to deliver on their contracts.
That is indeed the approach American politics prefers to take, and that’s what has allowed this decade-long situation to transpire in the first place. They may well choose to continue the course and allow the unhealthy labor practices of the past ten years to continue, in the hopes that the market will eventually correct them. Whether they should or not is the debate at hand.
(Note: You did not state whether you endorse the possibility you describe, so duly noted given the style of reply, as it seems that omission is accidental.)
(Note: You did not state whether you endorse the possibility you describe, so duly noted given the style of reply, as it seems that omission is accidental.)
If you chase that idea, you end up deregulating the railroads, and history has shown us that when a company is treating its employees terribly, the answer is never less regulation.
From stats I can look up, the average US railroad worker earns $130,000 year in total comp in 2021.
Railroad retirement begins full strength at age 60, and looks to be $4,838/mo for an ex railroad employee and spouse. In contrast, Social Security on $130,000 earnings would be $1,919/mo if you retired at age 62. The railroads pay for the retirement expense via tax.
So yes, by US labor standards, railroad employees are quite expensive.
Railroad retirement begins full strength at age 60, and looks to be $4,838/mo for an ex railroad employee and spouse. In contrast, Social Security on $130,000 earnings would be $1,919/mo if you retired at age 62. The railroads pay for the retirement expense via tax.
So yes, by US labor standards, railroad employees are quite expensive.
"Pensions are expensive" is a classic lie cooked up by finance (who want high fees in 401k individual accounts) and cheap companies who want to cut every benefit to the bone.
I'll preface this by stating that I have not looked into the railroad pension, but instead I will draw a parallel to my own. I can get 80% of my top recent pay when I retire after 32 years, which is quite generous as pensions go. The long-term cost of this is around 16-18% of payroll - 8-9% from my employer, 8-9% from me. Current cost to be in the social security program is about 12% of payroll. Increasing current retirement spending by 1.5x is enough to get you to an extremely generous pension. This is a decent amount of money but far from back-breaking.
I'll preface this by stating that I have not looked into the railroad pension, but instead I will draw a parallel to my own. I can get 80% of my top recent pay when I retire after 32 years, which is quite generous as pensions go. The long-term cost of this is around 16-18% of payroll - 8-9% from my employer, 8-9% from me. Current cost to be in the social security program is about 12% of payroll. Increasing current retirement spending by 1.5x is enough to get you to an extremely generous pension. This is a decent amount of money but far from back-breaking.
Defined benefit (DB) pensions are excessively expensive due to the advent of low cost broad market index funds.
With a DB pension, you have to add agency risk to the equation. There is no need for that now when you can get a Vanguard/Fidelity/Schwab 401k and pay the same 0.03% expense ratio to get the same investment performance that a pension fund manager would. And you never have to worry about the pension fund manager stealing from it, or the politician directing investments to their nephew’s real estate company.
I would rather have whatever normal cost the employer is contributing for DB pension given directly to me so I can drop it in VOO and cut out all the middlemen and reduce agency risk.
> The long-term cost of this is around 16-18% of payroll - 8-9% from my employer, 8-9% from me.
Assuming you work for the government in the US, this is false. Government entities in the US are allowed to use whatever nonsense assumptions they want to value liabilities, and obviously they undervalue them now and lay the extra cost on future taxpayers. Hence the underfunded DB pension and retiree healthcare crisis plaguing many taxpayers.
Finally, DB pensions and deferred benefits in general make it hard to compare compensation offers from different employers, which is also bad for workers trying to negotiate the highest price. Very few people are equipped to be able to properly price the value of a DB pension from one entity to another.
With a DB pension, you have to add agency risk to the equation. There is no need for that now when you can get a Vanguard/Fidelity/Schwab 401k and pay the same 0.03% expense ratio to get the same investment performance that a pension fund manager would. And you never have to worry about the pension fund manager stealing from it, or the politician directing investments to their nephew’s real estate company.
I would rather have whatever normal cost the employer is contributing for DB pension given directly to me so I can drop it in VOO and cut out all the middlemen and reduce agency risk.
> The long-term cost of this is around 16-18% of payroll - 8-9% from my employer, 8-9% from me.
Assuming you work for the government in the US, this is false. Government entities in the US are allowed to use whatever nonsense assumptions they want to value liabilities, and obviously they undervalue them now and lay the extra cost on future taxpayers. Hence the underfunded DB pension and retiree healthcare crisis plaguing many taxpayers.
Finally, DB pensions and deferred benefits in general make it hard to compare compensation offers from different employers, which is also bad for workers trying to negotiate the highest price. Very few people are equipped to be able to properly price the value of a DB pension from one entity to another.
>With a DB pension, you have to add agency risk to the equation. There is no need for that now when you can get a Vanguard/Fidelity/Schwab 401k and pay the same 0.03% expense ratio to get the same investment performance that a pension fund manager would. And you never have to worry about the pension fund manager stealing from it, or the politician directing investments to their nephew’s real estate company.
>I would rather have whatever normal cost the employer is contributing for DB pension given directly to me so I can drop it in VOO and cut out all the middlemen and reduce agency risk.
It's a tradeoff. The risks you describe are real, on the other hand, no reason why the pension needs to be actively managed. It's certainly perfectly viable for the pension fund to be managed by plopping money into a few low cost vanguard funds, and the reason it doesn't work that way is probably partly inertia and partly job justification. But your individual investment has a big risk too - what happens when you turn 80 (90? 100?) and the money runs out? What happens if the market takes a shit the day before you turn 65? Time to start buying Alpo if you're not in a pension.
>Assuming you work for the government in the US, this is false. Government entities in the US are allowed to use whatever nonsense assumptions they want to value liabilities, and obviously they undervalue them now and lay the extra cost on future taxpayers. Hence the underfunded DB pension and retiree healthcare crisis plaguing many taxpayers.
You're confusing the pension fund liability with the actual long-term cost of the plan. The cost of the plan can indeed be gamed, but there's not much point. It's just an actuarial calculation with all the assumptions that entails, and the actuary shows that long term, investment of this amount is sufficient to cover all costs.
The liability is the part that can be gamed for political purposes - either maximized to spread fear/blame, or minimized to get a politician money to spend today. But importantly, the liability doesn't really have much to do with the long term cost of the plan, except to express that past funding has not been sufficient to cover all costs.
>I would rather have whatever normal cost the employer is contributing for DB pension given directly to me so I can drop it in VOO and cut out all the middlemen and reduce agency risk.
It's a tradeoff. The risks you describe are real, on the other hand, no reason why the pension needs to be actively managed. It's certainly perfectly viable for the pension fund to be managed by plopping money into a few low cost vanguard funds, and the reason it doesn't work that way is probably partly inertia and partly job justification. But your individual investment has a big risk too - what happens when you turn 80 (90? 100?) and the money runs out? What happens if the market takes a shit the day before you turn 65? Time to start buying Alpo if you're not in a pension.
>Assuming you work for the government in the US, this is false. Government entities in the US are allowed to use whatever nonsense assumptions they want to value liabilities, and obviously they undervalue them now and lay the extra cost on future taxpayers. Hence the underfunded DB pension and retiree healthcare crisis plaguing many taxpayers.
You're confusing the pension fund liability with the actual long-term cost of the plan. The cost of the plan can indeed be gamed, but there's not much point. It's just an actuarial calculation with all the assumptions that entails, and the actuary shows that long term, investment of this amount is sufficient to cover all costs.
The liability is the part that can be gamed for political purposes - either maximized to spread fear/blame, or minimized to get a politician money to spend today. But importantly, the liability doesn't really have much to do with the long term cost of the plan, except to express that past funding has not been sufficient to cover all costs.
> But your individual investment has a big risk too - what happens when you turn 80 (90? 100?) and the money runs out? What happens if the market takes a shit the day before you turn 65? Time to start buying Alpo if you're not in a pension.
You can buy target date funds to minimize how much you have to manually reallocate between equities and bonds, and you can buy an annuity from an insurance company to guarantee a certain income.
I do not understand your distinctions between liability and cost of a DB pension.
> The cost of the plan can indeed be gamed, but there's not much point. It's just an actuarial calculation with all the assumptions that entails, and the actuary shows that long term, investment of this amount is sufficient to cover all costs.
There is a point…to contribute less than necessary for the pension plan to have sufficient funds, in order to make benefits appear cheaper today. For private company DB pension recipients, this results in them not being paid, hence strict laws like PPA 2006 and ERISA 1974. For taxpayer funded pensions, politicians just continuously increase taxes, so it is not as apparent of a problem.
For the DB pension recipient, they have the risk that the DB pension sponsor will come up short, either due to incompetence or corruption. That is a cost. Even taxpayer funded DB pension recipients have had their benefits cut when state and local governments could not come up with the cash.
Unless I had a federal government DB pension, I would assume there is nonzero risk of benefits being less than expected. Also, as a US resident, I have no doubt that even CPI adjusted benefits will be cut in real terms due to impending demographic issues and that is just how the game will be played. Feds will bail out equities over and over, and people with fixed incomes will continuously have less purchasing power.
Either way, I would rather own the assets being bailed out directly so that I can gain the most from the bail out, rather than pension fund gaining it and then still giving me a fixed benefit.
You can buy target date funds to minimize how much you have to manually reallocate between equities and bonds, and you can buy an annuity from an insurance company to guarantee a certain income.
I do not understand your distinctions between liability and cost of a DB pension.
> The cost of the plan can indeed be gamed, but there's not much point. It's just an actuarial calculation with all the assumptions that entails, and the actuary shows that long term, investment of this amount is sufficient to cover all costs.
There is a point…to contribute less than necessary for the pension plan to have sufficient funds, in order to make benefits appear cheaper today. For private company DB pension recipients, this results in them not being paid, hence strict laws like PPA 2006 and ERISA 1974. For taxpayer funded pensions, politicians just continuously increase taxes, so it is not as apparent of a problem.
For the DB pension recipient, they have the risk that the DB pension sponsor will come up short, either due to incompetence or corruption. That is a cost. Even taxpayer funded DB pension recipients have had their benefits cut when state and local governments could not come up with the cash.
Unless I had a federal government DB pension, I would assume there is nonzero risk of benefits being less than expected. Also, as a US resident, I have no doubt that even CPI adjusted benefits will be cut in real terms due to impending demographic issues and that is just how the game will be played. Feds will bail out equities over and over, and people with fixed incomes will continuously have less purchasing power.
Either way, I would rather own the assets being bailed out directly so that I can gain the most from the bail out, rather than pension fund gaining it and then still giving me a fixed benefit.
>You can buy target date funds to minimize how much you have to manually reallocate between equities and bonds, and you can buy an annuity from an insurance company to guarantee a certain income.
So to minimize the risk of market crash, you have to give up probably 4 or 5 years of decent returns by sitting in bonds instead. And if you want security of annuity you have to pay for that too, plus pay for the insurance man's profits. I just did a quote to put specific numbers in, to get 80k on my 100k salary for a set period of 20 years, I'd need to pay 1.1 million. That's 11 years of salary needed after taxes. Possibly I could have it after 32 years.
>I do not understand your distinctions between liability and cost of a DB pension.
The pension fund is a big pot of money that's supposed to have enough in it to pay costs for the next 30 years, assuming that the pension closed to new hires today. So the actuary says the present value of those costs is 10 billion, maybe the fund has 9 billion, you have a 1 billion dollar liability. This can be gamed.
But the actual costs for the next 30 years, based on actuarial assumptions and existing retirees, maybe are 18 billion in nominal dollars. Again, making assumptions about payroll, we can calculate this 18 billion as a percent of payroll over the same time. In my case, 16-18% is enough to cover. Unrelated to the fact that the fund has 9 billion or 11 billion or 1 billion.
So to minimize the risk of market crash, you have to give up probably 4 or 5 years of decent returns by sitting in bonds instead. And if you want security of annuity you have to pay for that too, plus pay for the insurance man's profits. I just did a quote to put specific numbers in, to get 80k on my 100k salary for a set period of 20 years, I'd need to pay 1.1 million. That's 11 years of salary needed after taxes. Possibly I could have it after 32 years.
>I do not understand your distinctions between liability and cost of a DB pension.
The pension fund is a big pot of money that's supposed to have enough in it to pay costs for the next 30 years, assuming that the pension closed to new hires today. So the actuary says the present value of those costs is 10 billion, maybe the fund has 9 billion, you have a 1 billion dollar liability. This can be gamed.
But the actual costs for the next 30 years, based on actuarial assumptions and existing retirees, maybe are 18 billion in nominal dollars. Again, making assumptions about payroll, we can calculate this 18 billion as a percent of payroll over the same time. In my case, 16-18% is enough to cover. Unrelated to the fact that the fund has 9 billion or 11 billion or 1 billion.
> And if you want security of annuity you have to pay for that too, plus pay for the insurance man's profits. I just did a quote to put specific numbers in, to get 80k on my 100k salary for a set period of 20 years, I'd need to pay 1.1 million. That's 11 years of salary needed after taxes. Possibly I could have it after 32 years.
The insurance company selling annuities and defined benefit pension plan sponsor selling annuities are doing the same thing. Although, based on history, the insurance company is subject to better regulation. Insurance company profit margins are ~5% at most, and I am sure DB pension plan management gets paid just the same. And it is all getting invested into the same equities and bonds.
The only difference is if you are a recipient of a taxpayer funded DB pension, then your DB plan sponsor has the power to increase taxes and will be more likely to stick around longer than a private company.
The reason that non taxpayer funded employers moved away from defined benefit pensions is because proper accounting made them too expensive. The old days of counting on explosive inherent growth due to everyone have 3+ kids is over.
The taxpayer funded DB pensions stick around because it remains politically possible to keep kicking the can to future taxpayers. The fact that the rules around taxpayer funded DB pensions are basically non existent and non taxpayer funded DB pensions are strict is all that needs to be said. Why would the same liabilities be allowed to be accounted for in different ways?
> So the actuary says the present value of those costs is 10 billion, maybe the fund has 9 billion, you have a 1 billion dollar liability. This can be gamed. But the actual costs for the next 30 years, based on actuarial assumptions and existing retirees, maybe are 18 billion in nominal dollars.
How can an actuary say present value of liabilities is $10B and also $18B?
The insurance company selling annuities and defined benefit pension plan sponsor selling annuities are doing the same thing. Although, based on history, the insurance company is subject to better regulation. Insurance company profit margins are ~5% at most, and I am sure DB pension plan management gets paid just the same. And it is all getting invested into the same equities and bonds.
The only difference is if you are a recipient of a taxpayer funded DB pension, then your DB plan sponsor has the power to increase taxes and will be more likely to stick around longer than a private company.
The reason that non taxpayer funded employers moved away from defined benefit pensions is because proper accounting made them too expensive. The old days of counting on explosive inherent growth due to everyone have 3+ kids is over.
The taxpayer funded DB pensions stick around because it remains politically possible to keep kicking the can to future taxpayers. The fact that the rules around taxpayer funded DB pensions are basically non existent and non taxpayer funded DB pensions are strict is all that needs to be said. Why would the same liabilities be allowed to be accounted for in different ways?
> So the actuary says the present value of those costs is 10 billion, maybe the fund has 9 billion, you have a 1 billion dollar liability. This can be gamed. But the actual costs for the next 30 years, based on actuarial assumptions and existing retirees, maybe are 18 billion in nominal dollars.
How can an actuary say present value of liabilities is $10B and also $18B?
"Total Comp", which typically is more than wages. This includes health benefits, which can be a significant part of the figure. So like another said they get the bare minimum but these figures seem inflated and make the employees exactly as said, "overpaid." So, all the public sees is "130K," with no clue where it all comes from.
As well, I have no clue what their benefits are like. It is quite possible they contribute to their benefits as well as most people do, which means their take home may be even less than you'd expect. I for one have employer provided health coverage where the employer contributes, as well as a portion comes out of my paycheck, with co-pays upon an office visit.
As well, I have no clue what their benefits are like. It is quite possible they contribute to their benefits as well as most people do, which means their take home may be even less than you'd expect. I for one have employer provided health coverage where the employer contributes, as well as a portion comes out of my paycheck, with co-pays upon an office visit.
Yeah, and the rail companies don't pay them a dime more than the minimum it costs to get a human being to subject themselves to the kinds of working conditions and risk on offer so let us not insinuate that rail crews are a bunch of over-paid malingerers.
> Are railroad profit margins so small that paying for excess labor will bankrupt them?
No. Railroads have the largest profit margins in American business.
> For the nation as a whole, profit margins generally sit at about 9% (8.89% to be precise), however, in transport, specifically railroads, this stands at 50.93%, the highest in the US.
https://ajot.com/news/railroads-are-usas-most-profitable-ind...
> US freight railroads are in a bit of a predicament, and it’s not just because they are going down to the wire on labor contract negotiations with their 115,000 workers.
> Large railroads, including Union Pacific Corp. and Warren Buffett's BNSF Railway Co., have juiced their profits so high by increasing efficiency and paring their workforces over the last several years that they have boxed themselves into a corner with no catalyst to keep attracting investors. Adjusted operating margins for the five largest US railroads were 41% last year, compared with 29% 10 years ago and 15% less than a couple of decades ago. Those margins are off the charts when compared with other transportation companies, including trucking, parcel, air freight, maritime shipping, airlines, you name it.
> In pushing those margins over the past five years to a level that analysts most likely would have thought were unobtainable, the railroads have angered their customers with high prices and poor service and have alienated their workers, who complain they’re being overworked after the railroads cut their ranks as much as possible.
> But far from looking to improve those relationships with customers and workers, the railroads still seem fixated on operating margins. Even as negotiations with the labor unions have dragged on for more than two years and have frozen rail workers’ salaries at 2019 levels, the railroads are asking union members to pay more out of pocket for health care.
> And no one can argue the railroads can’t afford their workers. In one example, Union Pacific, the largest publicly traded US railroad, paid investors more than $41 billion in dividends and share buybacks over five years through 2021. In the first six months of this year, the Omaha, Nebraska-based company heaped an additional $5 billion on shareholders.
> Instead of looking at the labor contract as an opportunity to win over their employees and work together to improve service — again, the key to any strategy to take truck traffic — the railroads seem to be more concerned about protecting their profit margin gains.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/railroads-get...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-08-03/railro...
The requirement for always increasing profits has resulted in mismanagers squeezing the railroad system until there is no further slack in the system. Because railroad workers form an "equal but separate" employment system to what the rest of the public sees, the public ends up staying terribly misinformed about just how different that railroad employment system is.
Since the executive classes get bonuses based on the wrong sort of incentives, the only way they can get bonuses is to abuse their workers to the point that even the public starts to notice.
> Railroad pensions are the only private pensions that I know of that are specifically called out in IRS tax forms. That has always seemed odd to me, and is probably some indication of how tightly regulated labor in the railroad business is.
Railroad workers have been kept out of the Social Security system from the very beginning. They can only get retirement benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board. Until recently (most of the changes were in 2006), many state & local government workers were also kept out of Social Security and were forced to rely on underfunded public pensions. No such changes have been made for railroad workers.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/railroad.htm...
https://www.rrb.gov/
No. Railroads have the largest profit margins in American business.
> For the nation as a whole, profit margins generally sit at about 9% (8.89% to be precise), however, in transport, specifically railroads, this stands at 50.93%, the highest in the US.
https://ajot.com/news/railroads-are-usas-most-profitable-ind...
> US freight railroads are in a bit of a predicament, and it’s not just because they are going down to the wire on labor contract negotiations with their 115,000 workers.
> Large railroads, including Union Pacific Corp. and Warren Buffett's BNSF Railway Co., have juiced their profits so high by increasing efficiency and paring their workforces over the last several years that they have boxed themselves into a corner with no catalyst to keep attracting investors. Adjusted operating margins for the five largest US railroads were 41% last year, compared with 29% 10 years ago and 15% less than a couple of decades ago. Those margins are off the charts when compared with other transportation companies, including trucking, parcel, air freight, maritime shipping, airlines, you name it.
> In pushing those margins over the past five years to a level that analysts most likely would have thought were unobtainable, the railroads have angered their customers with high prices and poor service and have alienated their workers, who complain they’re being overworked after the railroads cut their ranks as much as possible.
> But far from looking to improve those relationships with customers and workers, the railroads still seem fixated on operating margins. Even as negotiations with the labor unions have dragged on for more than two years and have frozen rail workers’ salaries at 2019 levels, the railroads are asking union members to pay more out of pocket for health care.
> And no one can argue the railroads can’t afford their workers. In one example, Union Pacific, the largest publicly traded US railroad, paid investors more than $41 billion in dividends and share buybacks over five years through 2021. In the first six months of this year, the Omaha, Nebraska-based company heaped an additional $5 billion on shareholders.
> Instead of looking at the labor contract as an opportunity to win over their employees and work together to improve service — again, the key to any strategy to take truck traffic — the railroads seem to be more concerned about protecting their profit margin gains.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/railroads-get...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-08-03/railro...
The requirement for always increasing profits has resulted in mismanagers squeezing the railroad system until there is no further slack in the system. Because railroad workers form an "equal but separate" employment system to what the rest of the public sees, the public ends up staying terribly misinformed about just how different that railroad employment system is.
Since the executive classes get bonuses based on the wrong sort of incentives, the only way they can get bonuses is to abuse their workers to the point that even the public starts to notice.
> Railroad pensions are the only private pensions that I know of that are specifically called out in IRS tax forms. That has always seemed odd to me, and is probably some indication of how tightly regulated labor in the railroad business is.
Railroad workers have been kept out of the Social Security system from the very beginning. They can only get retirement benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board. Until recently (most of the changes were in 2006), many state & local government workers were also kept out of Social Security and were forced to rely on underfunded public pensions. No such changes have been made for railroad workers.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/railroad.htm...
https://www.rrb.gov/
It looks like that article mixes its units. "Profit margin" is usually taken as net profit margin, and 8.89% is a reasonable average. No business stays in business with a 9% operating margin. So then the article compares net profit margin of the average company with the operating margin of the railroads. This is completely invalid. So much so that either the author of the article is incompetent or deceptive. Union Pacific has a net profit margin of about 29%, which is a little higher than Apple (25% most recently), so definitely quite a nice margin, although not as good as Visa (about 50% the past few years) or Equity Residential (50%; I believe they own large numbers of apartment complexes in cities).
I'm not defending the lack of sick leave, but that profit margin figure is just wrong.
I'm not defending the lack of sick leave, but that profit margin figure is just wrong.
So the reason that railroads refuse to give workers paid leave turns out to be that they're sociopathic bastards who value profit over lives. What a surprise.
“In order to get more milk off a cow with less food, you should feed it less and milk it more.”
We need self driving trains ASAP
FYI the part of the railroad system involving sitting in the cab at the front of a train moving from point A to point B is a very small part of the job. Most of the work happens at the yards, where trains are made up, cars are dropped off and switched, and all the maintenance happens.
It's hugely in the public interest to not have sick rail workers infecting their passengers
There's no passengers involved as PSR refers exclusively to freight rail. It's still in the public interest to not have sick rail workers die on the job because they are not given time off to access health care or recuperate from illnesses. This is what the dispute is about.
That applies to freight railroads how?
Notice the names of the railroads involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_la...
Notice the names of the railroads involved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_railroad_la...
Well, this sounds crazy, at least looking from Europe:
In February 2022, BNSF Railway implemented a points attendance system named "Hi Viz" that a union president called, "the worst and most egregious attendance policy ever adopted by any rail carrier." In the system, each worker starts with 30 points and loses points for taking a day off. Workers can accrue 4 points by being on-call for 14 straight days, but any time off, even for illness or a family emergency, resets the clock. Unions representing about 17,000 workers threatened to strike over the points system, but BNSF Railway sued and won a restraining order to prevent the unions from striking.Here in Argentina, the right to strike is granted by our constitution. A restraining order preventing unions from striking would be seen like a restraining order preventing voters from voting.
The right to strike is granted in the US as well, however laws mean nothing to the oligarchs.
Subject to the president in certain industries, as in this case
It doesn't say how many points are lost for taking a day.
[deleted]
Its not just about being sick. These guys can work in awful conditions doing a dangerous job and often can and do get hurt. "Sick" leave is not all about a virus .
It's in absolutely everyone's interest to have ample and guaranteed paid sick leave... except for a minuscule and already-wealthy portion of the population who might stand to lose a smidgen of money over such policies. Because of that threat of becoming more wealthy at a slightly reduced pace, they will oppose federal action with everything they have. And they usually win.
Sickness is kind of a red herring in the discussion. Everyone uses sick days as surprise vacations and that is more disruptive for railroads than, say, my desk job.
I like how it’s done in the Netherlands.
There are vacation days (guaranteed by law!). And then there is sick leave, and there is no fixed number of days.
They’re totally separate. If you’re sick, you’re sick - if you’re sick long term it’s covered by insurance. If you’re sick on holiday you even can get your vacation days back.
It’s so gross to me how this is handled in America. Certainly there are flaws in the Dutch approach, but it’s inhumane and precarious for so many people in America.
Makes me never want to return to life in the US.
There are vacation days (guaranteed by law!). And then there is sick leave, and there is no fixed number of days.
They’re totally separate. If you’re sick, you’re sick - if you’re sick long term it’s covered by insurance. If you’re sick on holiday you even can get your vacation days back.
It’s so gross to me how this is handled in America. Certainly there are flaws in the Dutch approach, but it’s inhumane and precarious for so many people in America.
Makes me never want to return to life in the US.
Who cares? That's life. Railraods need to deal with human nature like every other industry.
If a business depends on no one ever taking a day off without warning maybe that business shucks.
People who have enough vacation days don't use sick days that way.
That’s a long-winded way of saying: ‘We’d rather make more money than care about the health of our employees.’