Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 388 posts

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#301

Post by Georgelemental »

skizm wrote: post #101

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 th…

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

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#302

Post by kmbfjr »

crote wrote: post #163
matthewmcg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#303

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ckolkey wrote: post #77
ragingrobot wrote: post #49

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 fo…

> 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…

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.

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#304

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #256
soupfordummies wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#305

Post by ddingus »

retrac wrote: post #299
ALittleLight wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 la…

"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.

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#306

Post by bombcar »

danaris wrote: post #300
bombcar wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

But that would involve congress doing the right thing instead of the easy thing. But luckily we’ll do the right thing eventually, after having exhausted all other possibilities.

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#307

Post by ddingus »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #284
Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#308

Post by HDThoreaun »

Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #304
HDThoreaun wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (sor…

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

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#309

Post by p0pcult »

supercheetah wrote: post #294
Throwawayaerlei wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

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.

If anyone knows fast it's a supercheetah.

Re: Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

#310

Post by danaris »

bombcar wrote: post #306
danaris wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But that would involve congress doing the right thing instead of the easy thing. But luckily we’ll do the right thing eventually, after having exhausted all other possibilities.

Here's hopin'.
Post reply on HN