Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960468#Comment_119960468

Public sentiment is very much trending in favor of improving working conditions.

Not in this case, no, actual polling ran apparently to poll this very political issue, found contrary to your 'truthiness' an overwhelming majority, 9 in 10 Americans, would have wanted to avoid a strike at all cost. This is not analogous to Starbucks, Amazon and/or Kellogg's, all 3 of those companies rely in some manner, along with most other companies, on rail. If the rails stop the trucks stop, the ports stop, the economy stops, it's not as simple as raising a fist against workers peeing in a bottle in a warehouse, or foregoing your favorite brand of cereal or a pumpkin spice latte. And the polling on this issue, I think, accurately reflects that.

If we saw railways workers dying in avoidable tragedies like tornados etc., having to pee in bottles or something like the analogs we're talking about, that would be one thing. But it's not lost on the public that this fight is over paid sick days.

It is of course, your prerogative to disagree with it for as long and as much as you like otherwise.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960522#Comment_119960522

Whereas voting on providing sick leave would have provided an absolute win for the Democrats and Biden.

They did vote on it..

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960567#Comment_119960567

I was referring to Foxtrol's statement re: the Republicans

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960565#Comment_119960565

Two points.

The Association of American Railroads conducted that poll. Said association is an industry group, i.e. made up by the Railroad companies themselves. Not exactly unbiased, I think you would agree.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Railroads

Secondly, even allowing for that, the question posed was not referring to whether those being polled supported the demand for sick days.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960611#Comment_119960611

Forbes Tate conducted the survey, not the commissioners of the poll.

https://forbes-tate.com/

Secondly,

the question posed was not referring to whether those being polled supported the demand for sick days.

"The deal also provides best-in-class health care benefits, extended sick benefits, and an average of 3 weeks paid time off annually."

Thirdly,

Even among union households, this strike was grossly unpopular with national politic.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960522#Comment_119960522

Fully agree businesses will rarely willingly compromise for huge changes like this without the threat of industrial action. The US public and its laws dont provide them room to leverage it however. With Congress being able to force deals it is many of these same working class people who continue to vote for the GOP who will always side with the business.

GOP are never going to force a company into an agreement they do not accept, especially not one that would open the door to setting a precedent like sick leave and one where they could easily blame Biden on the fallout. That's the reality - there is nothing Biden could have done.

No point in continuing to go around in circles on this - you've shown time and again that you do not understand the US, neither the context of its politics or business. Your perspective is based on a US that would be a great place for workers to gain additional rights but it doesn't exist today.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960639#Comment_119960639

I stand corrected on who conducted it, thanks for that. Did they come up with the questions, or did the Railway companies provide them?

"The deal also provides best-in-class health care benefits, extended sick benefits, and an average of 3 weeks paid time off annually."

That's a rather biased slant imo. Some of the biggest complaints from workers concern a lack of time off and predictable schedules. They were penalized for taking time off. Calling The ending of such "The Best in class" is fairly shameless. The association, in my opinion, is looking to shape public sentiment against the Unions. The Hill not exactly a bastion of socialism.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960689#Comment_119960689

Based on what passed, is it a slant?

Did the deal extend sick benefits

Is there still, on average, 3 weeks of PTO?

72% of Americans, incl. 72% of US households supported Congressional intervention and congressional intervention didn't get the 7 days of PTO. But from what I understand, this is the only thing they wanted that they didn't get? 1 sick day, at the very least, and paid. In addition to other pre-approved or FMLA PTO they're entitled to.

Maybe we will see other polling on this topic, but for the moment it looks like most americans understand the pragmatism of this situation.

Biden at the bill signing Friday said his economic advisors told him as many as 765,000 Americans, “many of them union members themselves,” would have lost their jobs.

Railroad carriers begin prepping for a strike seven days in advance, according to federal safety measures. The carriers start to prioritize the securing and movement of sensitive materials such as chlorine for drinking water and hazardous materials.

Ninety-six hours before a strike date, chemicals are no longer transported. The American Chemistry Council found a drop of 1,975 carloads of chemical shipments during the week of Sept. 10, when the railroads stopped accepting shipments due to the previous threat of a rail strike.

The four major railroads also typically move more than 80% of the agricultural freight traffic, according to the National Grain and Feed Association.

Congress has the authority to regulate interstate commerce under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has ruled it can use that authority to intervene in disputes by rail labor that have the potential to affect trade across state lines. A nearly century-old law, the Railway Labor Act of 1926, gives the president the authority to intervene as well in situations where a rail strike could significantly affect essential transportation. The act has been invoked 18 times since it was signed into law.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/02/biden-signs-bill-averting-rail-worker-strike-despite-lack-of-paid-sick-days.html

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960745#Comment_119960745

You and I obviously disagree on what constitutes a good quality set up. I've read some pieces where workers talk about the conditions they had to contend with. Basically on call all the time. If they called in sick, they would accrue punitive points. Having to wait years until they had seniority to be able to take proper vacations because the schedule was constantly in flux and they were expected to work at any time.

So after years of failed negotiations, they've finally managed to win some concessions that allow them some ability to have a predictable work life, but sick days is a bridge too far for the railroads. I refer again back to the post with the statement from the PEB in their reasoning for rejecting sick days, where they agreed with the Raroad companies. They believed that workers might use them to have a healthy work/ life balance. It's there in plain English. Pure spite. Nothing to do with some terrible disruption to operations or economic impact. Just a desire to **** over the workers.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119960668#Comment_119960668

Yea I've no idea about the US, only lived and served there for 20 years.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961078#Comment_119961078

I refer again back to the post with the statement from the PEB in their reasoning for rejecting sick days, where they agreed with the Raroad companies. They believed that workers might use them to have a healthy work/ life balance. It's there in plain English. Pure spite. Nothing to do with some terrible disruption to operations or economic impact. Just a desire to **** over the workers.

Which statement was this I may have missed it.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961117#Comment_119961117

Sure, from a Twitter thread talking about the process that lead to the PEB and the eventual vote.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LilDonnyB/status/1598353800133320712

Edit: you can find the report on the nmb.gov page if you want to read it in its entirety. It's listed as PEB 250, under the What's New section of the drop down menu

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961173#Comment_119961173

I found the document.

https://nmb.gov/NMB_Application/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PEB-250-Report-and-Recommendations.pdf

Under Recommendations by the PEB:

PAID SICK LEAVE The Organizations [Unions] propose that the Carriers [Oligarch hairy bastards, etc.] provide employees with 15 days of paid sick leave annually where no sick leave is currently provided and increase the number of days of paid sick leave annually to 15 days where less than 15 days of paid annual sick leave is provided. Additionally, the proposal would allow annual carryover of any unused days of sick leave without limit. A savings provision is included that would not replace any more generous sick leave agreements in place. Finally, the Organizations propose that employees will not accrue any penalty points under any Carriers’ attendance policies for taking sick leave and that days requested may be taken on demand and cannot be denied.

The Organizations argue that paid sick leave is commonplace and that it is long past due to provide paid sick leave to rail employees. They further maintain that the need for paid sick leave is particularly acute at present, given the sharp reductions in employee headcount by the Carriers, which have led to what the Organizations assert are significant pressures – in the form of attendance control policies and other means – by management to limit the ability of employees to mark off due to fatigue or illness for themselves or for family members.

The Organizations stress the significant adverse impact on employees resulting from the sharp reductions in the working force and efforts by the Carriers to both schedule employees in ways that provided them much less time off and much less flexibility to attend to a variety of offduty needs, including doctor’s visits for the employee and for family members, or other important family or life events. According to the Organizations, employees who are fatigued or who are visibly ill and unable to safely work are either required to stay on the job or are being assessed points under the applicable attendance policy. The Organizations explain that the impetus for the paid sick leave proposal, including the provisions that preclude the Carriers from assessing points for sick leave absences and require that the sick days be treated as “on demand” days that cannot be denied for any reason by the Carriers, is to prevent these situations from continuing.

The Carriers oppose the proposal for several reasons. First, the Carriers object to the proposal on cost grounds. The estimated cost of the proposal, according to the Carriers, is $688,000,000 annually, an amount equivalent to a 6.4% GWI to all employees.7 Second, the Carriers assert that although some Organizations have negotiated sick leave, most have opted instead to bargain for Supplemental Sickness Benefit Plans (“SSBPs”). According to the Carriers, in many instances, sick leave programs were traded for SSBPs in negotiations. The Carriers note that, to date, although demands for both sick leave benefits and SSBPs have been made, no Organization has been successful in negotiating both benefits. The Carriers also object that the Organizations’ proposal in this case is not incremental; the Organizations’ proposal essentially provides employees with 15 days annually to use to mark off work for any reason and would lead to serious operational problems and impose greater burdens on employees who remain at work or are called in to cover those absences.

The Carriers maintain that, historically, the Parties have generally negotiated for paid time off that employees may use for days of absence for personal or family sickness. Employees have available to them a number of personal leave days, 11 paid holidays, and up to five weeks of vacation (up to two weeks of which may be used on a single day basis). In addition, absences of more than seven days in duration can be compensated in part through the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (“RUIA”) and for those covered by SSBPs, pay is available for absences due to disabling illnesses that extend beyond four days.

The Carriers dispute that the attendance policies are being applied in the manner alleged by the Organizations and note that mark offs have risen significantly, making it more difficult to maintain uninterrupted and efficient operations and service, particularly with the reduced level of working forces. Granting this proposal would only exacerbate that situation. The Carriers maintain further that they enjoy the managerial prerogative to promulgate attendance policies ["Twitter is a private company"] and administer discipline and that if the Organizations believe that discipline is being assessed improperly, they have the right to grieve and arbitrate those claims.

The [Presidential Emergency] Board appreciates how deeply the Organizations and the membership feel about the manner in which the Carriers are applying their attendance policies. Disputes over those issues, however, are best resolved in the grievance and arbitration process, not by an overly broad and very costly proposal that would create 15 paid days a year that, while nominally labeled as sick leave days, would be structured to be used on demand as a means of permitting employees to better balance work-life needs and would effectively be personal days that could not be denied 

for any reason by the Carriers. We understand the concerns voiced by the Organizations as to the circumstances that led to this proposal (and several others made in this proceeding). We are simply not in agreement that this sick leave proposal is otherwise warranted or is the appropriate way to address the concerns. We have taken the changes in demands upon employees into account when we formulated our recommendations concerning the wage package, including the service recognition bonus component. Any overreaching by any Carrier in a particular case in the exercise of its managerial authority will need to addressed through the grievance and arbitration processes, whether they are facial challenges to the reasonableness of attendance policy provisions as drafted or challenges to their application to individual employees, which will focus upon the facts of the particular case.

Additionally, as noted in the discussion above with respect to holidays, we are recommending one additional day of personal leave time as part of the package in this matter.

For all of these reasons, we recommend that the Organizations withdraw their sick leave proposal.

Given the full response from The Carriers ie. the railroads here, your statement

Nothing to do with some terrible disruption to operations or economic impact.

Isn't entirely true.

And it seems like their reasoning is supported by what the Organizations expressed to the PEB:

"The Organizations stress the significant adverse impact on employees resulting from the sharp reductions in the working force and efforts by the Carriers to both schedule employees in ways that provided them much less time off and much less flexibility to attend to a variety of offduty needs, including doctor’s visits for the employee and for family members, or other important family or life events."

Which is something no employer has reasonable control on: giving your employee the best healthcare in the world won't stop them from 'being sick.' FMLA leave is already paid and covered and separate. Calling out sick for your kids soccer practice, just not feeling it today, I didn't sleep because me and my spouse argued about what to eat for dinner last night, etc. all become, effectively guaranteed occurrences in the annual employer/employment experience from then on if they have use/lose 15 days for 'any reason,' and when you're shipping hazardous chemicals by the metric ton and when the entire rail system has multiple single points of failure, it's not hard to see why the Presidential Emergency Board agreed this was not the time place or manner to achieve better work life balance for anyone, would be my take from that.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961309#Comment_119961309

From reading through the document, a common theme highlighted is the under manning. This has forced a higher work load onto the workers, where the productivity levels have been maintained with a significant drop in employees. In that same time frame the Carriers have enjoyed record profit, have conducted large stock buybacks and given out large bonuses to management.

Under the section relating to the healthcare plan, which is admittedly very good relative to other industries, you can see that the Carriers are proposing a massive restructuring to shift greater costs into members, and decrease costs to them.

To argue that the proposal for sick days is somehow financially unbearable flies in the face of the clear facts pertaining to railroad finances. The Carriers are miserly in their approach to their workers, happy with an increasing workload while increasing punitive measures on workers.

I don't see any reasonable reading of that document that shows something other than the Carriers being stingy. They have a massive recruitment and retention issues, despite supposedly excellent wages and good healthcare. That's a pretty strong indictment against their management.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961085#Comment_119961085

Most Americans never leave the US during their whole lives and have no idea how the US political and business system works so your time there means nothing when you show a similar level of ignorance, whether yours is willful or not is an open question.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961469#Comment_119961469

I'm glad that you've given up any pretense towards having a valid argument here. As usual, your true colours out themselves

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961440#Comment_119961440

To argue that the proposal for sick days is somehow financially unbearable flies in the face of the clear facts pertaining to railroad finances.

When you say that, are you referring to just the direct cost of paying the workers their wages for their sick days?

Or do you mean the full set of costs that could come from delayed, canceled, disrupted shipments, especially when it becomes a norm that 15 days a year a worker is going to just not show up to work that day? They ship everything from people to grain to nuclear materials. Can they afford this? They don't just ship mundane things like people and grain or christmas presents but also hazardous chemicals and nuclear military material, things that are already fairly susceptible to Murphy's Law without incentivizing someone financially to do so 15 times a year, or 7. For a planned strike, the rails need to be cleared of hazardous materials 92 hours in advance, etc. to limit the potential for catastrophe. Imagine in the next labor dispute when the rail workers do a Twitter, and without warning, exercise say 7 days of their 'no questions asked' paid sick leave days. What were the safeguards from preventing this from happening, if The Organizations were awarded paid sick leave across the board by congress?

The better response would be for the rail companies to hire more workers but as they point out, they have the prerogative of private companies on that. I've seen plenty of companies operate on this principle of thinning out their labor and coverage to the maximum extent, it is not unique to the rail companies. Congress could probably conjure ways to stipulate better minimum staffing practices and maximum hours per week so employees are guaranteed down time, just like truckers are.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961589#Comment_119961589

I have little sympathy for the Carriers when they're deliberately under staffing, and creating a toxic work environment. That's no excuse for refusing to give workers a basic level of sick coverage.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961721#Comment_119961721

I'm not sure what Bernie is citing, but that sounds like only the direct cost of paying the workers for those days via payroll and applicable overhead, not for any of the second degree consequences of work disruptions, which would rip straight into the billions.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961761#Comment_119961761

Why would there be work disruptions? Any properly run business has built in systems to adjust in the event workers are out sick. These same workers that persevered through the pandemic, without paid sick days it should be added. They're free to hire more workers if it's such a concern, certainly doesn't seem like there's any lack of work, nor money to pay for them.

It's just an entirely empty line of reasoning. Workers are still getting sick right now, but instead of being able to deal with that properly, they're either coming to work anyway, or staying home at the risk of punitive measures.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961935#Comment_119961935

Empty line of reasoning which assumes disruptions won't happen and the railroad companies just need to 'git gud' at planning for abrupt callouts while handling hazardous materials etc.

They're free to hire more workers if it's such a concern

"Just don't be sad" etc.

“In January when I got on this [earnings] call, I said we were hiring because we anticipated growth. I fully expected that by now we would have about 500 new T&E [train and engine] employees on the property,” he said. “No way did I or anybody else in the last six months realize how difficult it was going to be to try and get people to come to work these days.”

“It’s an enormous challenge for us to go out and find people that want to be conductors on the railroad, just like it’s hard to find people that want to be baristas or anything else, it’s very, very difficult,” he said.

“Nor did we anticipate that a lot of the people were going to decide they didn’t want to work anymore. So attrition was much higher in the first half of the year than what we had expected,” he said.

“So even though we brought on 200 new employees, we fell short of where we thought we would be by now….”

https://wolfstreet.com/2021/07/22/after-slashing-33-of-their-workers-in-six-years-railroads-complain-about-labor-shortages-amid-uproar-from-shippers-over-slow-shipments/

You can attribute that to whatever factors you like, but for however long it would take rail companies to 'figure out' why 'nobody wants to work anymore' it would cripple the US national economy in the process. This same crisis faces healthcare and other industries too.

Folks will just have to stay mad that a strike was averted here, but I for one think we dodged a calamity, and polling suggests many other Americans might agree.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961965#Comment_119961965

I can attribute it directly from the report above, where they talk about the factors leading to workers leaving. Poor working conditions were the leading issue, with a lack of sick days a major component. I have zero sympathy for a business complaining about difficulties hiring, when they are actively opposing measures to improve the lives of workers in the name of profit. Reeks of all those businesses complaining when folks refuse to be exploited anymore. Disruptions are a part of life for any business, if that part of the job for the railways, they should staff accordingly.

your argument reeks of this:

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119962031#Comment_119962031

Nowhere did I disagree that railroad companies need to learn some things about why their employee retention and recruitment is in the gutter. What I clearly stated is while they spend days, weeks, months, playing outoftouchSkinner.png, millions of other workers faced job losses and the economy faced billions of dollars in costs if rails get disrupted.

However, nothing about this issue you have just raised would be resolved by congress forcing 7 or 15 paid sick leave days. Which would be unevenly applied to organizations that negotiated for Supplemental Sickness Benefit Plans (“SSBPs”) and those that did not. These retention conditions you're alluding too do not all boil down to paid vs unpaid sick days.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119962044#Comment_119962044

I'd disagree that there would be little impact from acquiescing to the paid sick days. For one, there wouldn't be the looming prospect of strikes, which is still a possibility. Also, giving workers more ability to take necessary time off for illness or even just as the report says, work/life balance, would go a long way towards improving retention. These guys are paid pretty decently, have quite good healthcare and pensions, so obviously it's a fairly significant issue if they are having such difficulties retaining workers.

I don't welcome the possibility of economic disruption, nor the likely grandstanding that would come from the Republicans on the backs of it. However, I fundamentally disagree with forcing workers to accept poor working conditions for the sake of others. If you remove their ability to strike, you take away all leverage they have to negotiate fair working standards. A line has to be drawn, it's the only way progress is made in the end. Same as I support the Nurses in England or the Garda at home. Working in a field with no Union or option for collective representation, I'm very envious of those that have the ability to stand up to exploitation and abuse.

Overheal

Also, giving workers more ability to take necessary time off for illness or even just as the report says, work/life balance, would go a long way towards improving retention. These guys are paid pretty decently, have quite good healthcare and pensions, so obviously it's a fairly significant issue if they are having such difficulties retaining workers.

Yes it's an issue the companies may take years to resolve, to properly train mirrors for every position in the respective companies so people can have these breaks with the right management practices to avoid economic impacts due to service disruption. It's not going to be solved if congress forces that benefit to come into force immediately or imminently, the capacity doesn't exist to do it that fast and not for simply a question of throwing more money at the problem, but for lack of time and resources to train and recruit and at an increased risk of accidents if anything is done poorly.

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119962109#Comment_119962109

That's load of cobblers imo. There's nothing to suggest that giving this sick leave would somehow create massive issues for the Carriers in their staffing. They hire new people all the time, so any argument about this being an overwhelming burden doesn't carry any water for me. They managed a very real disruption from covid so well, they turned record profits, while going through a decrease in workers. So your theoretical scenario is utterly nonsensical

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119962148#Comment_119962148

that’s blinkered; bidens first year was defined, largely, by the supply chain crisis which included the rails. I just don’t think you want to see that this is not a simple black/white workers rights story but a much more pragmatic controversy which has played out dozens of times in rail history

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119962164#Comment_119962164

No, it's a pretty simple workers rights issue. Using covid and other crisises as an excuse doesn't cut the mustard, especially given this particular work force sacrificed a bunch during the worst stages of the pandemic to keep the stock rolling. It's very simple, the Carriers don't want to give their workers a better quality of life. Which they could easily do and afford.

The fact that there have been repeated battles for railroad workers to gain better working conditions attests to the nature of the Carriers. They have always been exploitive and miserly, and will take every opportunity to put profit over people.

Overheal

FNC/FNB get more than they bargained for when pestering the press secretary on why Biden won't make a photo op visit to the border

"I think and we believe the question, again, as I was just answering to your colleague in the back, is that: What are congressional Republicans going to do to actually deal with this issue instead of doing political stunts — many of them political stunts that hurt families, that hurt kids, that hurt children — right? — that hurt people who are — who are coming here to try to seek asylum — leaving a, you know, leaving a dictatorship?

"Instead of going to the border and talking about — you know, about things that — not going to actually deliver and keep our borders safe, why don’t they work with us? Why don’t they actually do something? Why don’t they actually, you know, help the President get the funding that he requested — historic funding to — into homeland — into the Department of Homeland Security? That’s one way of doing that.

"But again, they’re playing political games and doing political stunts."

https://www.mediaite.com/news/fox-reporters-do-tag-team-grilling-about-biden-border-visit-at-briefing-jean-pierre-swats-down-calls-for-stunt-visit/

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119961965#Comment_119961965

Folks will just have to stay mad that a strike was averted here, but I for one think we dodged a calamity, and polling suggests many other Americans might agree.

The number of people who are 'mad' at this is absolutely tiny and I'd say nearly perfectly overlaps with those who have been kicking Biden for not doing 'more' on every issue since he became president.

Same folk who will sit out an elections because Biden only improved their lives slightly and then whine when the GOP makes their lives much worse.