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

351–360 of 388 posts

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

#351

Post by bumby »

notch656a wrote: post #335
bumby wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 societ…

>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.

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

#352

Post by SQueeeeeL »

vannevar wrote: post #337
SQueeeeeL wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stil…

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.

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

#353

Post by over_bridge »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #38

Stories from the US always sound like feudalism stories from long times past.

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.

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

#354

Post by bumby »

notch656a wrote: post #349
naasking wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sinc…

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.

I believe you are conflating their point. They aren't advocating fining for ethical violations, but fining on the basis of realized damages. If you think both the company and workers are responsible for those damages, it is unethical to disproportionately fine only one side.

If you tax the company, both sides will be affected. The company directly through the fines, but also the workers indirectly as the company pay structure will have to adjust to remain viable. If you only tax the workers, only one side of that equation is affected.

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

#355

Post by notch656a »

bumby wrote: post #351
notch656a wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 societ…

> 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…

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.

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

#356

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

zimpenfish wrote: post #332
raydev wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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."

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

#357

Post by fineIllregister »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #213
fineIllregister wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

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/addin…

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.

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

#358

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

sheepybloke wrote: post #325
bcrosby95 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 to…

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.

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

#359

Post by bumby »

notch656a wrote: post #355
bumby wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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…

>Theorize to me what their wages will go down to

If the companies are backstopped by the govt prohibiting a strike, they will go down to the absolute lowest level tolerable, until people retire and nobody is willing to take on that job. Likely, we'd see what happens in other industries that create a bimodal tiered system, where the grandfathered employees are still paid well while the newer tier are paid a fraction. Or, wages will stagnate until the equivalent occurs.

Again, taxing the companies will make sure incentives are more aligned between workers, shareholders, and the public. The problem with one-sided approaches is that it's very easy to levy a fine that someone else has to pay. The public and the shareholders can favor an ever-rising tax as long as long only the employees are burdened with it. Taxing the company will ensure that everyone is incentivized to find a reasonable taxation level.

Theorize the govt owns land that has the sole unobtanium mine that the fulfills some public necessity. I have the only equipment that can process the ore. You have the only skillset to operate it. Overtime, my contract terms get to a point that you feel is unreasonable. But the govt says you can't walk away because the public needs their unobtanium. Your solution is that the government tax you for the privilege to continue to mine - which they've also said you can't walk away from. Meanwhile, I pay no penalty to continue to press you for less favorable contract terms so that I can make ever increasing profits. Does that sound like a reasonable arrangement or is it marching towards a Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas scenario?

By taxing me instead, it forces me to find the right level of salary to you, rates to the public, and profits for myself. Everybody has skin in the game, unlike when your scenario that gives you an ultimatum you can't walk away from.

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

#360

Post by Throwawayaerlei »

ragingrobot wrote: post #350
bombcar wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-d…

> 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.'"

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.

Post reply on HN