Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

[Aridas]

That just doesn't sound like abuse.

To poke at this a little, I think that this particular attempted point is rather weaker than you think. There's a substantial increase to "hearing aid" benefits without increase in how much they need to pay, specifically? If they need hearing aids in the first place, they'll pretty certainly need hearing aids to function at work. So that's far more a 'we want our (maybe increasingly) elderly workers to keep doing their jobs' "concession" there.

 

[Aridas]

To poke at a small but possibly very good FEC change - it looks like, going forward, general public political ads will be required to identify who paid for them.

 

[Suddenly]

You can rant all you want about evil "capital" like an elderly Parisian Marxist, but the plain fact is that many, many Americans eke out their livings in jobs that pay vastly less than rail workers earn, with no benefits, no job security and no paid time off for sickness or anything else. That's maybe not the way it should be, but it's the way it is. And if Starbucks baristas or Uber drivers or adjunct professors have their holidays ruined and their livelihoods wrecked so a bunch of guys making over $100 grand can get more time off, they won't be blaming "capital."

All the more reason to strike. When strikes force concessions that rising tide lifts all boats. All present labor protections would not exist if workers past did not engage in strikes painful to capital and thus an inconvenience to others. I'm sure disruptions of coal and steel was a bother and some workers might have been upset but none of them are whining when the 40 hour five day workweek became standard and everything else growing out of that.

All of this concern about this hurting other people is human shield rhetoric. The people feeding you this propaganda care about baristas and Uber drivers not at all.

During the teachers strike GOP legislators wouldn't shut up about how the strike was hurting low income kids dependent on free meals at schools when at the same time they were and are the ones demolishing the safety net creating that need. It's a shamefully cynical tactic and those that fall for it should feel foolish shame.

Choosing baristas as an example probably wasn't the best choice. There is a growing union movement and they would very possibly join a general wildcat strike if that snowball were to start rolling.

Not to mention the French. They'd never have these issues because they'd have rioted long ago. They understand that reminding the people in charge that in the end the governed and the workers have the power is vital to their well being.

For reference:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/15/joe-biden-tentative-railway-labor-deal-reached-ave/



I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank.

Compare it to CEO salaries. Or what lawyers make. Or any number of jobs far less crucial.

If workers by quitting can cause billions of damage, well you better pay those workers accordingly.

Capital uses the threat of homelessness and poverty to force people to accept employment conditions and that's just the labor market and too bad, but when workers use the threat of economic damage for their advantage all of a sudden that "you get what you are worth" stuff goes out the window and people start telling them not to whine because they could be way worse off.

Bootlicking, all of it.

 

[Suddenly]

The biggest mistake the American labor movement ever made was the air traffic controllers' strike. That had the potential to hurt everybody and even endanger lives, and made the union look selfish, short-sighted and greedy. They gave Reagan good reason to bust them, with broad public support, and unions haven't been the same since.

Yes, historically labor makes it's best gains when they do nothing.

The only mistake was not retaliating with a general strike. Labor history is full of wins and losses. It's telling when someone brings up what was labor's biggest defeat in several generations and nothing else to imply union action is bad. As if that was the only strike in that time frame.

 

[autumn1971]

All the more reason to strike. When strikes force concessions that rising tide lifts all boats. All present labor protections would not exist if workers past did not engage in strikes painful to capital and thus an inconvenience to others. I'm sure disruptions of coal and steel was a bother and some workers might have been upset but none of them are whining when the 40 hour five day workweek became standard and everything else growing out of that.

All of this concern about this hurting other people is human shield rhetoric. The people feeding you this propaganda care about baristas and Uber drivers not at all.

During the teachers strike GOP legislators wouldn't shut up about how the strike was hurting low income kids dependent on free meals at schools when at the same time they were and are the ones demolishing the safety net creating that need. It's a shamefully cynical tactic and those that fall for it should feel foolish shame.

Choosing baristas as an example probably wasn't the best choice. There is a growing union movement and they would very possibly join a general wildcat strike if that snowball were to start rolling.

Not to mention the French. They'd never have these issues because they'd have rioted long ago. They understand that reminding the people in charge that in the end the governed and the workers have the power is vital to their well being.



Compare it to CEO salaries. Or what lawyers make. Or any number of jobs far less crucial.

If workers by quitting can cause billions of damage, well you better pay those workers accordingly.

Capital uses the threat of homelessness and poverty to force people to accept employment conditions and that's just the labor market and too bad, but when workers use the threat of economic damage for their advantage all of a sudden that "you get what you are worth" stuff goes out the window and people start telling them not to whine because they could be way worse off.

Bootlicking, all of it.

Look, besides you and a couple others, I’m as far left as Americans get. The time to complain, as pointed out, was years ago.
Echoing Marxist rhetoric will gain no friends in the voting public, and the right has been too effective in (somewhat accurately) making union workers into the “elite” who are demanding to be treated much better than the average worker.

This an example of Dems actually compromising; the unions are t happy, the railroads aren’t happy, (they did make concessions which grind their gears, even if they don’t solve underlying problems). That’s how government should work. Tiny steps that piss off everyone.

It’s amazing that in this age any concessions were granted at all. But I’m fine keeping my job with long hours and no sick leave or insurance if all it costs is a tiny amount of workers getting raises that pisses off “capital”.

Maybe I’m going soft, but blowing up the system because one battle only went a little bit our way tastes sour to me.

And, I suspect, to millions of workers who are the only chance we have to make baby-steps toward actual equitable treatment between labor and capital

Also, quoting Regan might not shine the best light on your economic theory

 

[Suddenly]

Look, besides you and a couple others, I’m as far left as Americans get. The time to complain, as pointed out, was years ago.
Echoing Marxist rhetoric will gain no friends in the voting public, and the right has been too effective in (somewhat accurately) making union workers into the “elite” who are demanding to be treated much better than the average worker.



Also, quoting Regan might not shine the best light on your economic theory

Reagan?

Anyway, caring about the popular opinion at present shouldn't be a concern. That's how civil unrest like a strike works. You make them feel the pain, you take the beating, and what happens happens. Or shut up and eat ****. Personal choice, but the people who shut up and eat **** need to stop acting like they are somehow noble for doing so.

I do think the way this was done is shameful. The Democrats used the crisis element of the situation and not only didn't use it to the advantage of the workers, they used it to kneecap them. I don't expect much better from them so that's something I'd maybe get over at some point in the cause of Republicans Are Just Too Damn Evil.

However, Biden's statement was the most infuriating thing I can remember ever reading, and I read Scalia, Alito and Thomas regularly. Just full of anti-labor tropes and misinformation and literally claiming to help the workers by jamming an agreement they declined down their throats. From someone claiming to an ally.

25% raise sounds dramatic? If you leave out that it is over five years. That he's getting into this implications of greed is bad enough, but to distort it to that end is just unforgivable.

I'm done with Biden. He didn't need to say all of that out loud.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Well this thread took a pretty weird turn. I keep waiting for some of our centrist Dems to chime in with criticism since they claim to be willing to do so when it's safe and this is as safe a space for it as possible - no elections to throw, no Republicans to inadvertently boost, or involved at all as a matter of fact, it's a complete self-own. Like stepping on a rake.

You can rant all you want about evil "capital" like an elderly Parisian Marxist, but the plain fact is that many, many Americans eke out their livings in jobs that pay vastly less than rail workers earn, with no benefits, no job security and no paid time off for sickness or anything else. That's maybe not the way it should be, but it's the way it is. And if Starbucks baristas or Uber drivers or adjunct professors have their holidays ruined and their livelihoods wrecked so a bunch of guys making over $100 grand can get more time off, they won't be blaming "capital."

This comment gets the irony prize though, for arguing that unions shouldn't seek to improve the conditions of their workers because of how poor the conditions are of workers not in unions, and choosing workers that have been actively pushing to improve their conditions by forming a union to make that point.

 

[Bob001]

Well this thread took a pretty weird turn. I keep waiting for some of our centrist Dems to chime in with criticism since they claim to be willing to do so when it's safe and this is as safe a space for it as possible - no elections to throw, no Republicans to inadvertently boost, or involved at all as a matter of fact, it's a complete self-own. Like stepping on a rake.


This comment gets the irony prize though, for arguing that unions shouldn't seek to improve the conditions of their workers because of how poor the conditions are of workers not in unions, and choosing workers that have been actively pushing to improve their conditions by forming a union to make that point.

I hope Starbucks organizers succeed. But if they go on strike to shut down the local stores, there are plenty of other places to buy coffee. Even going without wouldn't be much of a loss. It will ultimately come down to who can survive longer without income. But an essential industry on which the entire economy depends is different, and the railroad workers already have a generous union contract. The dispute was over whether they should get more days off. I think they should. Congress could have compelled it. But I don't think that's worth shutting down the national economy over in the dead of winter, and I don't think the rail unions did everything they could -- including a publicity campaign -- to advance their goals. "Give us what we want or we hit the bricks!" is antiquated thinking in the modern world.

Reposting from above:

The raises will be the biggest the railroad workers have received in more than four decades. The railroad industry has said that average rail worker salaries will reach $110,000 by the end of the five-year deal in 2025.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/sep/15/joe-biden-tentative-railway-labor-deal-reached-ave/

This is just not the downtrodden proletariat. What percentage of the American workforce earns $100K+ with job security and full benefits?

 

[Random]

I hope Starbucks organizers succeed. But if they go on strike to shut down the local stores, there are plenty of other places to buy coffee. Even going without wouldn't be much of a loss. It will ultimately come down to who can survive longer without income. But an essential industry on which the entire economy depends is different, and the railroad workers already have a generous union contract. The dispute was over whether they should get more days off. I think they should. Congress could have compelled it. But I don't think that's worth shutting down the national economy over in the dead of winter, and I don't think the rail unions did everything they could -- including a publicity campaign -- to advance their goals. "Give us what we want or we hit the bricks!" is antiquated thinking in the modern world.

Not quite. The dispute was whether they should have any days off at all. Basically, the railways have cut the workforce to the bone, and there are not really enough workers to do the job. So the railways have implemented a 24/7 on call system in order to have a flexible, always ready workforce that can be put to work on a moments notice and basically put on a shelf when not needed.

Great for the railway companies, but it sucks for the workers. While they are technically working a certain number of hours a week, they have no real way of knowing when those hours will happen. They might have a scheduled day off, but that means nothing if they get the call to come in. Vacations, family dinners, doctors appointments, basically anything that is not work might get thrown out of whack at a moments notice.

The sick days are a big issue on both sides, as the magical, low-workforce, computer-optimized flex schedule gets thrown out of whack if one worker is sick, regardless of whatever documentation the worker might obtain from a doctor. So getting sick and not working is punished by the railways as much as legally possible.

That's what the argument has been about really. Neither side has been budging on that one for the last few years.

 

[mgidm86]

Yes, and those workers should be treated better. There should be minimum standards for all workers that are superior to what we have. So what? That doesn't mean that this particular group of workers should be treated poorly.

Seven days a year of paid sick leave? Predictable work schedules and time off? Those are things they should have to fight for? That should be basic to everyone.

And frankly, if a few thousand workers going on strike is enough to cripple the US economy, those workers should probably be getting more than 111K in any case.

Funny!

The place I work is retail. The people who deal with the public make minimum wage ($15+/hour in Silicon Valley), don't know their schedules until the Sunday before that week. And what is paid sick leave? No medical benefits either.

These peoples' average salary is a little more than 1/4 of the railworkers.

You think they are sympathetic?

How about we start at the bottom and work our way up with this "fairness" thing? It always seems to go from the top down, and it never makes it very far down.

 

[ZiprHead]

Funny!

The place I work is retail. The people who deal with the public make minimum wage ($15+/hour in Silicon Valley), don't know their schedules until the Sunday before that week. And what is paid sick leave? No medical benefits either.

These peoples' average salary is a little more than 1/4 of the railworkers.

You think they are sympathetic?

How about we start at the bottom and work our way up with this "fairness" thing? It always seems to go from the top down, and it never makes it very far down.

Maybe you should form a union and threaten to strike instead of whining about what you haven't gotten in comparison to others..

 

[mgidm86]

Maybe you should form a union and threaten to strike instead of whining about what you haven't gotten in comparison to others..

I'm not one of those workers I just work for the same company, and I didn't say they were complaining, they aren't. That's kind of my point. What's yours?

 

[Bob001]

Maybe you should form a union and threaten to strike instead of whining about what you haven't gotten in comparison to others..

You think it's easy to form a union? Some of the wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations in the country will fight you, and the law is generally on their side.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You think it's easy to form a union? Some of the wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations in the country will fight you, and the law is generally on their side.

Including the President, apparently.

 

[ZiprHead]

Dup

 

[ZiprHead]

You think it's easy to form a union? Some of the wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations in the country will fight you, and the law is generally on their side.

I know all this because I've been through it all.

And I would also say when the laws are violated by management the law just looks the other way.

 

[Aridas]

I know all this because I've been through it all.

And I would also say when the laws are violated by management the law just looks the other way.

Still that way, eh?

To add a bit of a small history lesson for those not aware, the origin of "police" (note that this is not law enforcement as a whole) is basically just businesses pushing off their security costs onto the community. It's not as bad as it was then after major reforms, but... it's still fairly certainly true that police will tend to act on behalf of business management over business labor in a bunch of ways.

 

[Aridas]

Well, it may be too soon to tell, but it sure looks just like a major bit of domestic terrorism has happened in North Carolina.

Sheriff: Firearms caused damage that led to Moore County blackout; Curfew is in place amid State of Emergency

A State of Emergency is in effect in Moore County after a massive power outage caused by damage to substations by firearms.

There are unverified claims that it was intended to take out the power at a drag show, either way, and that's certainly entirely plausible. More evidence is needed before any firm conclusions, though. I find myself curious about Biden's reaction, including whether he'll publicly make a statement or direct further aid.

 

[Suddenly]

I'm not one of those workers I just work for the same company, and I didn't say they were complaining, they aren't. That's kind of my point. What's yours?

If they aren't complaining about their working conditions but are complaining/unsympathetic that other people are taking personal risk to complain about their working conditions they are the very definition of bootlicking. I can see feeling powerless to take action, but being resentful that others manage to do so is pure envy.

Anyway...

Your line of posts reads like someone with a very strong grasp as to the benefits of a union but thinks that strikes are a bad way to do anything about these problems because of public reaction to the inconveniences and economic effects of a strike.

Which is incoherent in that all those benefits come from the threat and reality of work stoppages. If that is off the table the powerful have no reason to ever agree to pro-labor policy. That it causes disruption is the point. It makes it impossible to ignore.

The essence of labor law is not some high minded noble pursuit of fairness. It's to avoid the inevitable violence that happens when workers collectively stand up for themselves and the powerful respond to that with everything they have from PR campaigns to armed goons.

That conflict is the reality and history tells us it a state of war. Early labor history was horrific. Yet it was the prime cause of the whole idea of workers having legal rights and developing what amount to rules of engagement during conflict.

Biden, by employing anti-labor rhetoric in urging congress to force a union to accept a deal thus making any following strike illegal ultimately puts us all in danger. We've in our lifetimes never had full on labor unrest. To some degree management and labor have observed rules of engagement but now more and more the government is indicating it will throw it's weight against labor. The chances of strikes spreading and becoming violent grow the more government favors the interests of capital.

This eventually ends in violence. Pinkertons shooting people, the powerful using law enforcement as a pretext to suppress workers, workers destroying business assets and/or violently deterring replacement workers. None of which is desirable. In this case it isn't hard to image someone like the proud boys shooting up a picket line because socialism.

 

[Bob001]

.....
Your line of posts reads like someone with a very strong grasp as to the benefits of a union but thinks that strikes are a bad way to do anything about these problems because of public reaction to the inconveniences and economic effects of a strike.
.....

Most strikes are focused on one employer. If, say, GM employees go on strike, it only affects GM and their customers and suppliers. That's bad enough, but most people and businesses would continue pretty much as normal, and most strikes don't even have the impact that a GM strike would have. Who would really be hurt if all the Starbucks shut down? But a rail strike wrecks the entire economy, including ordinary families who can't buy food and fuel oil. It's just not realistic to expect the entire country to suffer for the benefit of workers who already have much more in pay and benefits than they can hope to get for themselves.

And when was the last major strike in the U.S.? I suspect it's been at least 30 years. There has been general recognition that strikes are bad for employers and labor.