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

371–380 of 388 posts

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

#371

Post by DanBC »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #29
chiefalchemist wrote: post #2

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.

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) s…

> 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.

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

#372

Post by biztos »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #370
stephen_g wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, coming from a country with strong labour laws, it's mind boggling that this is legal in the US. As an American I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. Certainly Biden looks like a fucking jackass. Currently the Zodiac Killer is bemoaning Biden's anti-worker sentiment. Obviously Cruz is wholly incapable of doing anything with a modicum of integrity but if the republicans run with this through the 2024 election…

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

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

#373

Post by krapp »

biztos wrote: post #372
inferiorhuman wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, coming from a country with strong labour laws, it's mind boggling that this is legal in the US. As an American I'm not surprised, but I am disappointed. Certainly Biden looks like a fucking jackass. Currently the Zodiac Killer is bemoaning Biden's anti-worker sentiment. Obviously Cruz is wholly incapable of doing anything with a modicum of integrity but if the republicans run with this through the 2024 election…

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz%E2%80%93Zodiac_Killer...

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

#374

Post by bumby »

WalterBright wrote: post #125

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 fo…

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.

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

#375

Post by semiquaver »

Avshalom wrote: post #292
semiquaver wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 d…

> 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.

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

#376

Post by notch656a »

bumby wrote: post #366
notch656a wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does 130k in comp compare to a "tolerable" compensation? Do you anticipate someone earning above 130k USD is representative of the general public of Americans who would be punished for the railroad strikes? As a matter of imperfect pragmatism I would support a bill that equally collects from the employees and employer as it would still be some way of extracting rent from land provided freely by public for a servi…

1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at. 2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in sala…

>1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at.

Yes. And you forecast it will be lower in the scenario you proposed of "monopolistic employment." But it is not lower, which logically concludes there is not the condition of monopolistic employment you claim.

>2)2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in salary luxurious given no sick days, 24/7 on call, physically demanding job, and lots of travel, for what the country is saying is a critical role? It doesn’t seem so to me. That’s in todays dollars that will be eroded in the future if the companies have their druthers. It doesn’t seem like the great deal you’re painting it as when ignoring the total picture.

Then it makes even less sense the employees should socialize the risks onto the general public, who receive (by median) less than 130k in total compensation. The tax on employee is to compensate for these socialized losses for privatized gains, imposed against use of land given freely by the public.

3> again, the land easements are to the company, not the employee. So it doesn’t follow that you want to tax the employee for a right given to the employer. It’s such odd logic that it comes across as a trolling effort

Employees OF THE COMPANY -- the employees in collusion (monopolistic collusion if you are to be believed) to stop operating the railroad on these lands. Who are disproportional beneficiaries of the land, and by your prior statement equally to shoulder of the damages. The damages imposed by the employees are damages against use of the land.

Your absurd trolling accusation, and apparent willing disregard that employees are disproportionate beneficiaries of the land, show you are no longer acting in good faith, so at this point I wish you good day and will give you the joyous benefit of whatever name calling you wish to continue in unopposed.

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

#377

Post by notch656a »

chii wrote: post #363
bumby wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

i dont understand the proposal to tax the employee. Taxing an activity makes it happen less. If the gov't want fewer railroad workers (or in your hypothetical example, mining equipment operators), they'd tax them like this! there'd be fewer operators as a result, and any shortage of them will cause problems. These operators aren't slaves - they can quit the industry. The gov't would instead tax those employees _less_…

Except the premise given by bumbly above was that the employee's labor is inelastic as they are locked into the industry, and thus the labor would shoulder all of the tax without change in supply. Your comment is directly calling bumbly a liar.

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

#378

Post by notch656a »

bumby wrote: post #354
notch656a wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim?

>They aren't advocating fining for ethical violations,

Your statement is a contradiction of GP's statement. Preferring the side with better 'ethical claim' is in effect a redistribution in the form of discount to the more 'ethical' with a fine to the less 'ethical'.

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

#379

Post by bumby »

notch656a wrote: post #376
bumby wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at. 2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in sala…

>1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at. Yes. And you forecast it will be lower in the scenario you proposed of "monopolistic employment." But it is not lower, which logically concludes there is not the condition of monopolistic employment you claim. >2)2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t hav…

>there is not the condition of monopolistic employment you claim.

Note the intervention of the govt is the key factors that changes this dynamic. E.g., why aren’t monopolistic utilities constantly gouging their customers? Because they are regulated monopolies.

The trade off with the public that you mention is how these endeavors become regulated monopolies in the first place. Society gets efficiency from the private sector in exchange for giving a public resource. The regulation is the mediating condition of that agreement.

Yes, employees of the company. That doesn’t negate the point. We disagree that the employees are disproportionately benefiting. All you have to do is see who’s equity is most aligned with the land. (Hint: it’s the billions of dollars of company equipment of the company). It’s absurd to tax at a level one degree removed while leaving the primary beneficiaries (the company) without accountability. It’s obvious you have an axe to grind that need not be encumbered with logic.

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

#380

Post by shinyamagami »

cainxinth wrote: post #17

> ”The answer, in short, is “P.S.R.” — or precision-scheduled railroading. P.S.R. is an operational strategy that aims to minimize the ratio between railroads’ operating costs and their revenues through various cost-cutting and (ostensibly) efficiency-increasing measures. The basic idea is to transport more freight using fewer workers and railcars.” That’s a long-winded way of saying: ‘We’d rather make more money tha…

But they have been saying vaccines save lives while people dying now show the same symptom people had in 2020.
Post reply on HN