Republicans say no to paid railroad worker sick leave?

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (110 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 2 months ago

    The usual conservative scoundrels at the helm?

    I can't understand why it is so unreasonable to accommodate the fact that people can and do get sick?  In industry as crucial as commercial rail surely this basic labor accommodation would be one we would expect to be naturally provided for. Seven paid sick leave days a year is hardly a great deal to ask.

    Another reason why I dislike and distrust Republicans, always on the side of the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, etc, and against basic labor fairness and decency. And, it has nothing to do with "race"

    I wanted to better understand the why and wherefore of the railroad companies, so I read this article and I still am not convinced that the workers requests for this accommodation is "over the top"

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11 … ading.html

    The greed and excesses of capitalism, reducing people to serfs and slaves continues in 21st century HD quality color. The interests in efficiency within the  industry cannot include grinding the bones of workers to dust in the process. Their current business model needs to be altered, otherwise I support their strike even over the apparent view of President Biden giving in to the robber Barrons like a folding lawn chair.

    It Is a business model that needs to be altered......

    Your thoughts....

    1. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I'm not up to speed on the sick-day issue, but relative to the highlights of the agreement, the unions did get the concession to require two people where only one is needed, (something in the engine engineer's job, and the union acknowledges that only one person is needed). I think that is over the top.

      I think they got a 23 - 27% wage increase. That's not bad.

      Relative to paid sick leave . . . workers are paid for their labor, it should be up to the employer to decide if that labor is valuable enough to pay for it when it isn't available. No' rights', social inequities, or other kumbaya stuff are involved. It is and should be viewed as simply a contractual agreement, or not.

      Considering the potential national economic damage, I think Congress was right to get involved in the way it did—only codifying a previously agreed-upon deal.

      Did you look at the vote to come to your "conservative scoundrels" thought? I heard a blurb that not all the Ds voted for it. Are they DINOs?

      GA

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Then maybe the union needs to renegotiate its concessions to management and give back the unnecessary in order to acquire the essential. I don't see how anyone can be expected to work without paid sick leave.

        So, if you have a heart attack on the job, you are fired and don't get paid? As for the raises, knowing capitalists, they probably paid the extra  as the workers were probably underpaid before. I will check on this.....

        More of that hard core capitalist, corporate, anti-union attitude? The article speaks of the railroad companies opened to financial concessions because of increased efficiencies that they have, as usual, used to line their pockets and those of the shareholders at the workers expense. When has it ever been different? So, if a fellow dies on the job, he will receive a reprimand or a pink slip?

        We have DINOs,  unfortunately, but it is pretty easy to see who the nay Sayers are based on the votes in the House of Representives.

        The fact that this industry is of national import, is all the more reason to get it right. It's a free country, if acceptable concessions are not agreed to, so much for the industry and the owners, without skilled employees.

        1. DrMark1961 profile image96
          DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Then maybe workers need to negotiate their own contract without the interference of the government? Why do you think this was just conservatives? Wasnt it a Democratic house that approved this? Wasnt it a Democratic president that signed this so that it would be imposed against the workers?

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Doc, if I can offer a suggestion. These sorts of issues and nature and magnitude of industries involved can be subject the Defense Production Act, giving the Government broad powers to control output of industries. It has been generally reserve to wartime, but has had peacetime applications.

            The magnitude of a slowdown in this industry is such where Washington has to be concerned. Consequently, the government sits at the bargaining table.

            Here is a good article from Rutgers U in New Jersey which explains better than I.

            https://www.rutgers.edu/news/why-did-go … ean-unions

            Here is something that explain the nature of the vote and the obvious difference in the party affiliation and the vote.

            https://news.yahoo.com/more-200-republi … 00179.html

            "On Wednesday, the House of Representatives voted on a bill to adopt the tentative contract, which passed 290-137. Many Democrats were also furious about the sick time issue, so the House also voted on Resolution 119, which would add seven days of paid sick leave to the contract. A whopping 207 Republicans voted against it. The resolution still passed with 221 votes, from 218 Democrats and a measly three Republicans."

            1. DrMark1961 profile image96
              DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              That is unfortunate since no matter how well you are paid you should be able to get some sick leave. Witholding it encourages people to work when sick and causes the spread of communicable diseases. I would have thought that everyone learned that during the COVID debacle.

              Thanks for those links.The article stated it clearly: "These are not the actions of a “pro-labor” president."

              1. Credence2 profile image78
                Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Besides the well being of the employee, I had forgotten about the risk to others by forcing sick and contagious employees to the workplace...

        2. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          The 'unnecessary vs the essentials'? That's what the negotiations were all about. It appears the unions' 'majority' determinations were different than what you think they should be.

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Perhaps...

            We will see how this all shakes out.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Deleted

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Sharlee, what you posted was a one sided view from managements perspective, just another paper hanging exercise on their part.

        Here's a more substantive difference between what management offers as "fair" and the reality.



        "A spokeswoman for the Association of American Railroads, Jessica Kahanek, pointed to a list that includes several leave options, such as a system in which sick employees can temporarily remove themselves from a roster of available workers, as well as time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act. And all employees have a long-term sickness benefit that can pay a portion of the worker’s income for up to 26 weeks, the rail association said.

        But time off under the Family and Medical Leave Act is unpaid, according to the Department of Labor. And the system that allows employees to remove themselves from availability is unpaid, union lawyer Richard Edelman said. Workers also could be disciplined for using it, he added.
        Moreover, the long-term sickness benefit is meant for more serious illnesses or injuries, he said, and would not help employees who get the flu, for example, or need emergency dental surgery. “All of those things that are one- or two-day things — railroad employees don’t have that,” Edelman said."

        And more....

        “While the bargaining round has concluded, conversations about bringing greater predictability and work-life balance for railroaders will continue,” he said.
        Vachon, the labor professor, said that nothing should prevent rail companies from providing their employees with paid sick leave. He said it comes down to paying for more workers and maintaining a rotating pool of people to cover shifts while others are out.
        “There’s nothing inherent about the railroad industry to make paid sick leave unsustainable,” he said, adding that rail workers in Europe have the benefit. “This idea that it’s not possible is really just a cop-out. … The companies are deciding how to spend their resources, and they’re spending the money to buy back their stocks and give dividends to shareholders rather than investing in their workers.”

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I took my comment down, the more I looked into the issue, I felt unqualified to give a comment. I will agree, these workers certainly deserve sick time.

          I hope they will iron out a fair contract that has sick time.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I am glad that you took another look, thanks...

          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Why do workers "deserve" paid sick time?

            That isn't intended to be trite, but it should be the first question asked. What makes an employee deserve anything beyond payment for their labor? The 'perks' employers offer, beyond payment for labor, are enticements not deserved fulfillments.

            The only thing anyone deserves is what they can keep, whether it is the compensation of agreements or the moralities of society.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Gosh, GA, this is the 21st century, we should have left the concepts of 12 hour work days, tenement houses and sweat shops by the wayside.

              Does 'deserve what they can keep' mean to protect from what can be stolen? A society based on taking from others because you can?

              Just like safe working conditions and such, we need not refer to 19th century attitudes and values to acknowledge that expectations between labor and management have changed over this period of time. What was a "perk" 100 years ago is common practice, today.

              These workers are not generously paid, have families and do, on occasion, fall ill. And still their labor contributions lie at the very crux of the American economy. If any labor dispute needs to be settled fairly, it is this one.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                You accused another of taking all points to the extreme just to refute a position, yet here you are doing it: " . . . 12 hour work days, tenement houses and sweat shops . . . [sic]". I'm not talking about extremes. Start with the basics and work toward your thought about 'morally deserving'. I'm betting you can't get there without the support of 'yeah buts . . . .'

                You say the concept of getting what you pay for is out-dated in this 21st century.  I say it shouldn't be.

                Why should an employer pay for labor not received? Would you pay for a product you didn't receive, and will never receive?

                Would you be okay with paying two people to mow your lawn because one got sick and couldn't do it? The same example works for brain surgeons. Would you pay for a second one because the first one had bad shellfish for lunch?

                The details and examples in a discussion like this are usually unnecessary because the first question is never addressed. Why must an employer pay for something he doesn't get?

                I say he shouldn't unless doing so brings him benefits.
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .

                just a pause to give your Progressive side time to gird up and sharpen its nib. ;-)
                .
                That answer is the only true one in a capitalistic society. (ie. almost all societies on earth) Any other will be conditioned; it's the moral thing to do, it's a norm for a society's 'evolution', etc. My answer is unconditioned.

                As always, I have a but . . . with the exception of 'ditch-digging-type' day labor jobs, I think it is almost always to the employer's benefit, (ie. worth the extra expense), to offer such perks. Primarily to get the best labor and stability to benefit the employer. Secondarily, an employer would also benefit from the positive effects of all the great human and societal betterments that would come from better work-life situations. (all the reasons and rationalizations the pro side offers)

                A question is prompted by another's point. One job offers $15 p/hr with sickpay and a second offers $30 p/hr without sickpay. Which job would you pick?

                My problem isn't with the 'asking', (or even expecting), an employer for paid sick time, it is the reasons and rationalizations 'ya'll' use to justify turning the rightness of asking into the wrong of 'demanding as a right' that I have a problem with.

                As for that "deserve" thing, I doubt you could find a society—from a village to a nation, today that doesn't 'take from others because they can.'

                GA

                1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                  DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Does this answer also support a governments right to impose a contract on a group of workers? Government interference, which we saw here, is not capitalism.

                  We agree that you cannot say the workers "deserve" it. They should, however, have the right to fight for it.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    My answer was to the point of demanding paid sick leave as a right that only greedy immoral sweatshop employers would refuse. It was also about the sandy foundation of the claims that the demand is a right—at least in the sense of being the morally right thing to do. Your question doesn't connect to that.

                    But as a tangent, my first response to the thought is that Congress got it right this time. It seems that, without partisan spin, Congress only forced the unions to keep a bargain they made; the pre-election 'Biden Deal'.

                    As I understand, the problem of paid sick days emerged post-election by 3 or 4 of the minority unions, (minority in voting power). A deal was reached with the majority of unions, pre-Congressional action. What changed? We didn't hear from those minority unions in the pre-election scrimmage, so why are they 'wagging the dog' post-election?

                    My shortest answer is that I'm not pro-union. Nor am I pro-government intervention in private business contracts. When the involved industry is one that could cause national crippling damage this becomes a gray area.  I wouldn't support Congress forcing a national retail union contract. In this arena, I demand the right to have my cake and eat it too. All the players are not to be equally judged.

                    The difference is the impact on the nation. A minority group of unions should not be able to subvert the agreement of the majority unions to shut down a nation's economy.

                    GA

                2. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  "As for that "deserve" thing, I doubt you could find a society—from a village to a nation, today that doesn't 'take from others because they can.'"

                  Funny we are having this conversation, when I think back to the time you and I first got acquainted, you were the only guy that had issues with the New Deal, 90 years after it has been well woven into American life.

                  You were the guy that said that despite incredible treachery by Republicans in regards to Appointment of Supreme Court Justices, you said that I and the democrats should take the high road, allow the Republicans to roll over us like Mack Trucks without retaliation. Why? Because, it was the right thing to do.

                  But, now in this case, it is dog eat dog, and every man for himself. A sudden pivot, I would think....

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Almost right. I do think there were problems with 'The New Deal'. And I have urged you away from 'two wrongs make . . . ' rationalizations. But I never urged you to just roll over for the Republicans. You folks are a needed counterbalance. You just need some 'perspective.'

                    'Dog-eat-dog'? Again with the extremes.  Was that referencing my 'PTO' perspective or the 'taking because they can' thought?

                    GA

              2. gmwilliams profile image85
                gmwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Employees do deserve humane working conditions which include decent pay, benefits, & paid sick days.  This is the 21st century-employees aren't slaves to be used & disposed at will.  This isn't I.G. Farben.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Any employee that is striking to get paid sick days already has PTO in the form of vacation days.  How about a thinking employee save a few days to use when sick?

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              I did look into the rail worker's current contract. In my view, it seemed very fair. However, I am one person, with one view.  I feel that an employer has the right to hire, and set their terms in regard to benefits, period.

              Naturally, one can hope to obtain a job that comes with good benefits. However, Individuals maintain the right to take a job or decide not to take a job if it does not offer the benefits they are looking for.   

              We all have the right to leave a job and look for one that suits our wants, our needs.

              I worked for many years in the nursing profession. I will share I had sick days, but few...  I was never denied time off for an illness, but when sick pay was depleted, I naturally did not get paid for sick days once they were depleted.  I could have moved on to a Hospital that was Unionized, but I selected not to.   

              My point, the employer sets the terms, one can take them or look for a position that fits their wishes.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Somehow that entire concept, that people are responsible for themselves and must choose wisely, for themselves and without a Great Father in DC watching over them, goes right over the heads of far too many people.

                If one does not like the compensation package, including PTO, then look elsewhere to sell your product (your own labor).  If you cannot get what you think you are worth (most people) then your estimate of your worth is too high.  If you cannot get PTO for being sick, then the value of your product is not as much as you think it is, by whatever value you put on that PTO.

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  The truth of the matter is that we need these rail workers.  The railroad industry has made profits hand over fist.  Paid sick leave is not too much to ask for.  With your logic who whatever do these jobs?

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Which of those 'truths' influences you the most; that we need the rail workers or that the RRs are making money hand over fist?

                    I agree that "asking for paid leave is not too much." But demanding it via threat of economic extortion is.

                    GA

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    I have zero idea what the "railroad industry" has made, and doubt you have looked it up either.

                    Can you support your statement, logicall and reasonably, that PTO for being sick is not too much to ask for?  How do you justify being paid not to work, and how do you justify that paid sick leave is almost always abused by those that have it?

                    How about instead using vacation time when sick?  Allow workers to call in and ask for a vacation day without notification, at least a few times a year?

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      If capitalism reduces people to serfs and slaves, one must also recognize the liberalism, or "progressivism", reduces them to children or even sub-human creatures unable to provide for themselves, that require charity to even feed themselves.

      Companies are not charitable organizations; they exist to make a profit.  Part of that comes from the contract with workers to exchange work for money; the demand for money without working is distasteful and disgraceful.  Doubly so at the wage they are earning, for they can certainly save some out for a rainy day.

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It is not about money, Wilderness. Everybody can and does get sick. I should not have to have my hand virtually sawed off in an accident to access sick absence benefits rather than leave for the flu or any of many short term maladies.

        If companies cannot work within labor regulations in the interests of employees along with those of profit, they don't deserve to survive.....

        That is, regardless of what you think of liberals and progressives.....

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          It's not about money...as the entire demand is for money without working???  How do you figure it is not about money?

          Nor does it have to do with labor regulations, for there is no regulation requiring paid time off for sickness or any other reason. 

          I repeat; those people make good money; if they want to be paid while not working then they can put some aside.  Or buy insurance - always an option.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            https://www.salary.com/research/salary/ … ker-salary

            I don't know about you, but I don't consider 44-53K per annum earned by your average rail industry worker as a "lot of money".

    4. CHRIS57 profile image60
      CHRIS57posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Normally i don´t comment on US domestic issues.

      But this discussion is out of the 19th century, if not before.

      In 1794 first laws were enacted in Prussia to make masters pay for food and curing of sick workers.

      This was detailed in 1861 with direct reference to sick leave pay and was renewed under Bismarck in 1883.

      Lets skip the period from WWI and WWII (the Nazis didn´t tamper with the law), in 1965 current version was enacted that unconditionally guarantees 6 weeks of sick leave with full pay.

      Now - we can discuss what is good, better or best, but in an advanced, civilized economy it should be out of the question to guarantee pay for sick leave.

      Apparently the early regulation of this issue in Germany did not hinder economic development. Sometimes i think on the contrary, it promoted development.

      1. DrMark1961 profile image96
        DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I do not feel that the government needs to make laws on this but this case was even worse than that. The governenment is forcing the workers to accept a contract that does not even allow any sick days.

        The US government is telling these people "If you have symptoms of COVID and think you might be contagious go to work." At least they should have the right to strike if they feel that the contract is being unfair to them.

        As that Rutgers article Credence linked to points out "These are not the actions of a “pro-labor” president."

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Biden has disappointed me in being slow to recognize an unsustainable arrangement in the negotiation process.

      2. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Well, Chris, that is the nature of this thread debating the merit behind employee/employer relationships that had been settled generations ago, or so I thought.

        And I thought that I could leave my "Back to the Future" DeLorean in the garage.....

  2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months ago

    Discouraging and disappointing that Congress did not want to give these workers the same benefits that they enjoy for work that is a lot less strenuous.  If you read into the lives that these rail workers have and the schedules that they keep it is just incredible. The fact that we cannot keep them on par with our fat cats in Washington is sickening. These workers have huge and very real quality of life concerns.   But sadly railway workers aren't the only ones without paid sick days.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      What percentage of American workers do you think are "on par with our fat cats in Washington"?  10%  5%?  1%?

      Personally I doubt it is even 1%.  How many people have the health insurance Congress does?  How many work the number of hours in a year that Congressional legislators do?  How many even earn the income a Congressman/woman does ($174,000)?

      And what percentage of Americans get a weeks paid leave for illness?  Personally, the only time I did was when I was on salary; as an hourly employee I never once, in some 30+ years, had that benefit.

    2. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      It is the stuff of the privileged plutocrat and oligarch, what benefits that they take for granted are not meant for others...

  3. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 2 months ago

    Here is what the rail road workers currently get.

    The average employee gets between 25 and 29 paid days off.

    I've never worked for a company who provided that much time off for employees who were not senior employees.  Senior employees at the railroad get 37 to 39 days a year paid time off.  That is over a month.

    I think they currently get plenty of paid time off.  They don't really need any more.

    https://www.aar.org/wp-content/uploads/ … -Sheet.pdf

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I started off by reading the contract, posting it, and taking it down. Mike, no open wants to her that part of the story. It should be a very relevant part of this contract disagreement. But, it's turned into, a political dispute, Republican versus Democrat.  Seems it has gone over many heads that the Biden White House is sticking its noses in private business for political reasons. The more I look into this issue, the writing is on the wall.   And you won't find a peep of a whisper about the current contract. It well appears we have a spotlight on these negotiations, and the bleeding hearts are out in full number.

      1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It really doesn't matter if you are democrat or republican this should have come down on the side of the rail workers. It's despicable and sickening that these people who work as hard as they do cannot get 7 Days paid sick leave are you kidding me?  Stop making this partisan.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          These people already have Long Term Disability, in that they can be paid (60% or more) for up to a year for being sick, available after 7 days off.  It is pathetic that that same worker cannot be asked to provide for their own loss of a mere week of income.  They have vacation days - use them!  It is not the job of the employer to coddle employees as if they were children, unable to take responsibility for themselves.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I keep encouraging all to read the current contract.  The workers have many paid days. Call them personal or sick days they get more than most other industries. They have good health benefits, and long-term paid health time off.

          2. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Amen!

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              You know it's getting pretty obvious on here that nobody cares actually looking at the facts of a situation in an unbiased manner. People just want to line up on their red or blue sides. Twist yourself into pretzels to make it all right. No critical thinking. If it's your party line then it's 100% correct. Just let them tell you what to believe, you don't need to think at all.  It's absolutely mindless. It's a cult. It's like you just want to be right or feel like you have won no matter what.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Have you read the current contract they have been working under... You need to read what they get before you defend what you feel they should add.

          As I said this is once again Biden trying to politic using media to make it look like he is doing something. . My gosh...  That is what is sickening. The government should not be sticking its nose into private businesses. Have a look at what they currently have. 

          https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/357 … ost4274262

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkzbq/ … heir-lives

            I don't care about trying to make this a Democrat or Republican thing. That is turning my stomach unbelievably. These people are incredibly hard workers and our government is screwing them over just stop already

        3. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Ah, the average rail worker gets 25 - 29 paid days off a year.  I think that's plenty.  It's more than most people get at most jobs.

          1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
            Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Those are not sick days, they can accrue vacation days which must be scheduled. It would be convenient for all of us if we could schedule our illnesses but in reality it doesn't work that way. 
            These workers are required to be on call almost 100% of their time and if they do not respond to the railways commands they lose "points"  most come to work sick, in confined spaces and are largely unable to even schedule doctor appointments because of their on demand schedule. These are absolutely brutal working conditions. Please read the accounts of actual railway workers.  Our government has absolutely done them dirty.

            https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkzbq/ … heir-lives

          2. DrMark1961 profile image96
            DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            The number of paid vacation days or paid holidays is not the issue, and whether it is more than most people get does not excuse the governments actions. If they say to their employer "we want 7 sick days" and the employer says no, they should be able to stop working. The government is telling them no, you have to accept this contract.

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              And I totally agree. The government literally threw these people under the train

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              This is the point. The Government has no place in private business. It's called Socialism, something we have lived well without.  A private company has the right to provide benefits or not. An individual has the right to move on from a job, or need not apply.   

              And I might add, sharing my own thoughts --- If one does not care for free enterprise there are many other Nations they can head off to.

              1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                I cannot understand how Biden signed this bill when he claims to be a president for the working man. I remember a time when the Democratic party did support workers; that time is over.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, that all ended with Obama... We are working on a New World order now. It is progressing nicely, is it not, with the Biden Bunch? (Meant to be overly sarcastic, but what I see as true.)

                  As I see it, he wants to control the working man and every aspect of their life. What they can earn, say, and ultimately what they are
                  allowed to do.  And it is unfortunate many Americans are more than ready for this kind of dictatorship. So much easier to be a failure, than thrive and be a free-thinking individual.  As you can see I prefer strong over weak. free-thinking over the group, self-sufficient over-dependent.

                  1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    "As I see it, he wants to control the working man and every aspect of their life. What they can earn, say, and ultimately what they are
                    allowed to do. "


                    I sort of think that that's what all but six Republican Senators did when they voted against allowing railway workers to have a meager seven sick days.

                2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  He had no choice basically other than to sign it because he didn't have the support of enough Republicans in the Senate to pass anything other than a flaming pile of trash

                  All but six Republican Senators voted against giving the railway workers seven paid sick days

                  1. DrMark1961 profile image96
                    DrMark1961posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Blame it on the Senate? That is called passing the buck. I think there was a Democratic president a few years back that said something about that.

                  2. Sharlee01 profile image85
                    Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    He had the very sensible choice to step away and keep his politics out of where they don't belong.  Congress has no place in dictating to private companies.  We are a capitalist Nation, we have free enterprise, we have become well accustomed to working with unions, and the US government has no place in negotiations should they have the power to demand workers not strike or return to work. And have no right to vote on benefits that a company must legally provide its workers.

                    Congress should never have even had this crap presented to them. The Republicans stood their ground. and did not vote for sick days due to it not being in their wheelhouse to do. Benefits are part of the negotiations that go on between company and union --- the Government has no place dictating what benefits a private company offers. My God this borders on pure dictatorship. In my view, if Congress would have passed legislation on a contract that dictates what a private company must pay in Benefits we are headed toward the Government dictating to privately owned businesses. We all know what that leads to.

      2. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
        Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        This has nothing to do with President Biden? The railway workers are being screwed over regardless of party. But just stick with whatever your party tells you to believe because that's what's really important right?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Really, the republicans prefer the Government to step aside and showed that with their votes. Stood on principle. This is once again the Biden administration making a poor decision to even become involved. Just another Biden blunder of poor decision-making. He thought he could interview and look like a big hero, but as always he comes out looking like a fool.

          The Government has no place in dictating or suggesting worker benefits to private companies. 

          He should have well learned his listen with the private oil companies. Biden needs to return to the basement, in my view.

          And not sure if anyone realizes the raises were very good for these workers. It would seem they would have monetary benefits due to substantial raises. Money in their pockets.  The media has liberals running around acting as if these workers are getting shafted. The company should leave out the raises, and give them sick days. They might ultimately save cash. 

          Some can never can see beyond the weeds. The contracts being discussed had some very good perks. The media has ya stuck on one sticking point. Makes me wonder what the actual workers are thinking about all this BS. Look over here not there...

      3. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        According to the workers, vacation time and sick leave are separate issues. Vacation time has to be planned ahead for in advance, it does not work this way when the onset of any malady is not going to restrain itself from sickening the employee or others, waiting for permission from management........

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          You need to look at my link and see how sick leave is handled.  It is pretty generous.

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Ok, I will look at it again.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Of course they find it different; to do otherwise is to agree that they already have more than most and more is just frosting on top of frosting.

          There is zero reason that management would deny the ability to ask for vacation time without scheduling when the employee is too sick to come in.  A very simple solution, right?

          1. Credence2 profile image78
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Why wouldn't management deny vacation time? They do it all of the time based on personnel needs and work loads. Being ill cannot be subject to such an evaluation.

    2. Nathanville profile image93
      Nathanvilleposted 2 months ago

      The sick leave laws in the EU and UK may seem alien to Americans.  In the EU & UK your employer cannot stop you taking sick leave, and for the first three days are obliged to pay your full pay.  After the third day, if you don’t have a contract with your employer that offers better sick leave terms than the legal minimum then you are entitled to ‘Statutory Sick Pay’ for up to 28 weeks e.g. where your employer pays you $120 per week for being sick.  But in the UK the unions of large business organisations in the public and private sector have generally negotiated employment contract agreements whereby the employer will pay the full working wage for the full period the person is sick – So it’s only if you work for a small company that you’ll only get the Statutory Sick Pay.

    3. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months ago

      It looks like it is within governments purview or even responsibility to regulate this situation..

      Labor relations in the railroad and airline industries are governed by a specific piece of federal labor law known as the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Unlike the National Labor Relations Act, which establishes labor law for the entire private sector, or the various state laws that govern public sector labor relations, the RLA has a long process that involves cooling off periods, mediation and even government intervention before allowing a strike to occur.

      The purposes of the RLA are to avoid any interruption of interstate commerce by providing for the prompt disposition of disputes between carriers and their employees and protects the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.

      The workers were screwed over by the government.  It's absolutely unacceptable and ludicrous that these people should not have sick days. I don't care what other incentives were added to their contract. Please take some time to read about what these jobs entail.


      Sort of reminds me of when Ronald Reagan fired the air traffic controllers because they asked for humane working conditions.
      https://www.rutgers.edu/news/why-did-go … ean-unions

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        "The workers were screwed over by the government."

        Why?  Because they didn't get to write their own pay schedules, like Congress does?  Not sure at all that means they were "screwed over by government".

        1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
          Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          These are extremely hard workers who are literally on call all day everyday. Please read about the lives of these workers.  Read about their schedules and the demands that are made upon them by the railway corporations. Demands really that lead to safety concerns for all of us. It's absolutely ludicrous that Congress couldn't have given them sick pay.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            You think that their work life is hard, so Congress should give them more pay. 

            Can't say that I would agree with that; these are all adults, fully capable of making their own choices.  If they don't like the pay then find another job.  It is not the task of our government to decide what value is placed on labor and it certainly is not yours.

            (Except your own wage, of course, whereupon it is a matter of negotiation between you and your employer.  Just as it is for everyone else).

            1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Well I wish Congress would have let them go on strike.  A lousy 7 Days of paid sick leave is not an outrageous ask, it's common decency. It's respect for people who do a very difficult and dangerous job that is absolutely essential to our economy. The fact that we can't have a little more respect for these people is disgusting. The answer can't always be if you don't like when a corporation treats you like trash just to move on. But in this instance it was solely the government's responsibility, specifically Congress in terms of the Railway Labor Act to do right by these people and you know what? they basically turned their backs on them. Personally, after reading these workers first-hand stories of the way their employers treat them, the sleep deprived nature of the work and how dangerous it can be really shocked me. These people are literally powering our economy they deserved better.  If Congress wasn't willing to deliver seven lousy days they should have let them strike and bring the railways to their knees.  I would have supported them 100%

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Well, it's around $1,700 per employee, or in the neighborhood of a cool million for a decent sized company.  On top of a very generous raise.  If it's "common decency" you might give it to them out of your payroll instead of demanding that someone else do it.

                The fact that we don't have more respect for every employee in this country is disgusting; they ALL deserve more money, right?

                Why can't it be to move on if you don't like working for a company?  There are 2 job openings for every applicant right now - seems an easy task to do.

                Govt. responsibility to do right by the employee...but not the company that feeds them, and (according to you are the cornerstone of our economy) right?  The company is irrelevant; it is only the source of unlimited cash (until it goes under and no one has a job, anyway).

                No, they are not "powering our economy", no matter how much you would like to proclaim it so.  Even if you are referring to freight moved, trucks carry far more than rail lines do - you might make a claim that truckers power the economy, and deserve the wages that rail workers do (including PTO, which hardly any get).  And the electrician that keeps power coming to your home.  And the plumber that keeps your toilet working.  And the taxi driver that delivers you to where you need to be.  And, and, and.  Everyone, in other words...and we can all pay the increased prices as everyone gets over a week off while getting paid.  How much do you earn in 7 days that you would like to see your costs of goods go up by?

                1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                  Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  "The fact that we don't have more respect for every employee in this country is disgusting; they ALL deserve more money, right?"

                  I am talking about the railway situation. A situation that the government had the legal right to resolve. They had  the ability to do the right thing and they didn't. Plain and simple. If they didn't want to give them the 7 days they should have let them go on strike. They stuck them with a deal missing the one thing they really wanted and deserve so that they could quickly go ahead and bar them from striking. Honestly I wish they would all walk off the job and paralyze the whole system.

                  This has nothing to do with workers in any other profession as they do not fall under this Act.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Right is right and wrong is wrong.  If it is "right" for government to force one business to give paid sick days then it is "right" for it to do so for ALL employees of the country.  There is no real difference between that and a minimum wage (illegal under our constitution, for there is nothing in that document that allows the federal government to set wages for anyone other than federal employees).  State governments, yes, but not the feds.

                    But you are mistaken; it was NOT "right" to force a business to provide PTO for illness on top of all other bennies (or on top of just a simple wage, for that matter).  That would have been plain wrong; if employees demand it and business won't pay it, find a business that will.  It really is that simple.  It is a contract between two private entities; government has no say in the matter.  Understanding that our government has the right under RLA to force a solution before a strike, it is still wrong to force business to pay that.  The wage is already higher than average, and bennies are pretty much equivalent; that is all govt. should ever force.

                    1. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
                      Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                      I think you keep skirting the issue that it was the current administration's duty to settle the railway issue. Just as Railway issues have been settled by previous administrations. Going back as far as I can recall, Lyndon Johnson (twice) imposed railway settlements as did Nixon,  Ronald Reagan and George Bush.  Our current Congress botched the job.    I will agree to disagree with your conclusions but this is the 21st Century and to have skilled workers being denied sick leave, even unpaid sick leave, is unconscionable.
                      Essentially the railway corporations were  playing a game of chicken with consumers’ access to everyday needed products. 

                      Following your reasoning, I would love to see the healthcare benefits, which are top tier, of our Congress people be removed. They are  Very well paid and can and should foot the bill for their own coverage. I digress but they are supposed to be public servants.

    4. tsmog profile image78
      tsmogposted 2 months ago

      Just for fun, I queried about Railway company investors in the dispute. Seems they desire the sick pay to be granted.

      Link goes to a Google landing page for articles about that to pick and choose from
      https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … er+dispute

     
    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
    ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)