Republicans say no to paid railroad worker sick leave?
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....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?
GAThen 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.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?
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."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."
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
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.”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.I am glad that you took another look, thanks...
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.
GAGosh, 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.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.'
GADoes 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.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.
GASo basically you are saying that if an official makes a contract and you disagree with it you should accept it anyway?
If Biden decides to declare war on Canada, and you do not agree with it, does that mean you should be forced to support him because the US elected him as president? After all, he is your representative, just like those union officials that made an agreement with Biden are representatives of the rail workers.
As far as my question not addressing that issue, it certainly does. The government is imposing a contract on workers, and not allowing a free exchange of services for goods. If one of my employees comes to me and says they want another sick day, I may tell them I will have to lower their salary. If they threaten to quit I can pay that other sick day or find another employee. What I should not do however is go to the mayors office and tell them to force my employee to work.I see the two points, my answer to the demand of PTO, (paid time off), and your point about government intervention, as different things. I wasn't talking about the government forcing a PTO solution, I was talking about the wrongness of demanding PTO as a moral and societal right. That issue is a black-and-white one for me.
Your issue—government intervention in private contract agreements isn't so clearly defined—for me, in issues like this one. Rather than a clear issue of government vs. private business, this one feels more like government vs. a public utility. The RRs may be private but their business is more of a public utility than a wholly private business—relative to its impact on the economy.
GAI think most are missing the importance of the Railway Labor Act and it's impact on this current situation. Congress can step in to resolve disputes between labor unions and railroads under the RLA, as part of its power under the Constitution to regulate commerce. The law was written to prevent disruptions in interstate commerce through rail and air. If folks want the government intervention out of the rails and air then they'd have to get rid of this act.
Additionally, this is nowhere near the first time the act has been invoked. Looks like 18 other times in historyThe logic behind the RLA is similar to the logic of my support for the Congressional action in this case.
GA
"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....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?
GAIt is about "taking because they can" thought. You always say two wrongs don't make a right. But if we eliminate the possibility of the first wrong in the beginning there would be no need to counter with another wrong....
Eliminating "the first wrong" would be a good start. All we need to do is change the behavior of our human nature. Countering a 'wrong' with another wrong isn't the way to do that.
.
GA
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.
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?
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.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.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?
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.
GAI 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?Are you serious about being paid not to work?? We are talking about people being ill and sick here? Yes record profits for the railways. And do you really think vacation days exist? When sick days don't exist? I don't think you're understanding the railways whatsoever.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews … -for-2021/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjkzbq/ … heir-livesAnd that 8.89B (for the largest in the country) pales beside the income of other businesses.
What matters is the profit margin; did that railroad (the biggest in the business) earn 5% profit? 1%? 10%? Big profits don't mean much to a big company. Your link carefully failed to say - it was more important to raise ire at big profits for a big company.
Yes vacation days exist; the average for the rail industry is 3 weeks per year. What makes you think they don't get any?https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/in … or-workers
They have to use their personal days as sick days and their personal days must be scheduled ahead of time so you can see how that really doesn't work very well as a sick day.The comment you refer to was that vacation days COULD be taken without scheduling in the case of illness, if agreed to by the company. They could also agree to roll over any vacation days not taken, at least to one more year. This would allow saving a few days (after the first year) without losing a vacation.
This would be a very simple solution...but unacceptable because it doesn't add to the compensation package value, right?
Why do railroad workers not get sick days?
The railroads refused to add sick time during these negotiations because they said the unions had agreed over the decades to forgo paid sick leave in favor of higher wages and strong short-term disability benefits that start to kick in after four or seven days and replace part of a worker's wages for up to a year.
The new contracts have a very substantial monetary wage. In the end, this most certainly costs the company more than would pay sick days. It would seem the company could cut back on this monetary raise and give them sick days. Go figure
Biden should have kept his face out of this. He thought he would have a win with voters, and be the big guy, the hero... Just another blunder that backfired, just like he tried to push around the oil companies. You would think he would learn.They were going to strike, what decision would you have made? Work under the Railway Labor Act or let them strike at a cost of billions per day to our economy?
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.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.....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.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".
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.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."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.....
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.
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.It is the stuff of the privileged plutocrat and oligarch, what benefits that they take for granted are not meant for others...
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.pdfI 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 … ost4274262https://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
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.
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-livesThe 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.
And I totally agree. The government literally threw these people under the train
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.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.
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."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.
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 daysBlame 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.
No that's the reality of the Senate if you don't have 60 votes you're not doing anything. You know it's the filibuster what's your suggestion around it? Axing the filibuster?
This never should have been presented in Congress, period. Congress has no place in a private company and a union s negotiations. And they certainly have no place in voting on what benefits a comapny offers workers.
This was a very dishonest Democratic ploy, to make it look like Republicans are the big bad wolfs because they won't vote to give these workers sick pay. This is similar. I am thankful the Republicans stood strong and stayed away from dictating to a private company via congressional legislation to offer worker benefits.
Benefits are more fairly negotiated by companies/unions, and the workers had the choice of the strike before Biden made Congress step in.
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.I'll refer you back to the post about the Railway Labor Act:
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.
Congress can step in to resolve disputes between labor unions and railroads under the 1926 Railway Labor Act, as part of its power under the Constitution to regulate commerce. That law was written to prevent disruptions in interstate commerce.
Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court has ruled that that includes the authority to intervene in railway labor disputes that threaten trade across state lines. The workers were threatening to strike on December 9th which would have cost billions of dollars to our economy each day.
What was the other option? To let them strike and paralyze our economy?
Congress could have at least given them their sick days but I suppose they should be thinking they're lucky about now that they're not all fired as Mr Reagan did to the air traffic controllersJust curious, but would you have supported a lower pay raise (it was a very good one), lower by the value of those sick days being demanded?
Yes, Congress can step in to prevent a strike. They have no right to add or vote on benefits. Period. It was clear due to the lag in notifications Congress was within the right to step in in regards to preventing a strike at a time the country has a very big problem with moving goods. Congress has no legal right to vote on worker benefits. This is where they overstepped their authority.
It would seem you feel Congress should have voted on the company being forced to pay 7 days of sick leave. The government has no legal right to dictate the benefits of a private company.
This is why the Republicans voted against the House's requests to dictate what benefits a company must offer.
They did the right thing. In my view, no, congress has no right to dictate the benefits a private company must pay workers. My God that would have set a dangerous precedence.
The government has no place in free enterprise."They did the right thing. In my view, no, congress has no right to dictate the benefits a private company must pay workers. My God that would have set a dangerous precedence."
Unfortunately, that precedent has already been set. Many, many times over.
An Employer must buy unemployment insurance for an employee. They must provide workman's comp. They must pay at least $7.25 per hour. They must provide ADA amenities. They must provide certain safety items. They must pay overtime wages in many circumstances. They must pay half of the SS taxes charged the employee.
The dictation of benefits, by government edict, is a precedent that was set many years ago. Not saying I agree with it, but it is no longer a precedent to be set."Congress has no legal right to vote on worker benefits. This is where they overstepped their authority.
Actually they were completely within their authority.
Under the Railway Labor Act, the federal agency that oversees railroad and airline labor relations is the National Mediation Board, which tries to bring the two sides together, and it set up a series of limits and cooling off periods during which unions can not strike and management can not lock out the workers. "And if all those efforts fail, then Congress can step in and impose a contract under which both sides will have to operate." The law regulates labor relations only when it comes to railroads and airlines.
It's cut and dry. The workers and the management or at a stalemate. It was quite obvious they were going to strike. Congress could have and should have imposed a better contract to the benefit of these very essential workers.
The railways, if you take a look, or making money hand over fist . 7 Days of paid sick leave is a drop in the bucket.
During the first nine months of 2022, the railroad industry made a record-breaking $21.2 billion in profits. Meanwhile, the rail carriers estimate that providing seven paid days of sick leave to their employees would only cost $321 million per year...less than 2 percent of those profits. Boo Hoo
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?
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...
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........
You need to look at my link and see how sick leave is handled. It is pretty generous.
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?
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.
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"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".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.
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).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%
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?"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.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.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.LOL I would have said it is you skirting the issue. That issue was not that govt. should settle the dispute; it was should rail workers get more PTO. And government settled it, just as they were supposed to. That you don't like the decision does not change that it was settled.
Fay, one of my biggest objections is that sick leave is inevitably abused by workers. Fishing is not being sick, and neither is mowing the lawn. My limited experience is that sick leave is more often used for entertainment of some kind than for illness.
So...MY solution is to used vacation days for sick leave. If a company wishes to add vacation days, fine, but in the current case the workers already have lots of PTO.
But another one is that we keep raising the cost of labor (and the resulting rise in cost of the product/service). Minimum wage rises. FMLA laws. Sick leave. Holidays. Vacation days. SS taxes paid by the employer. Unemployment and workmen's comp costs paid by the employer. Health insurance, with it's enormous inflation rate and inevitable demands for more insurance. LTD insurance. Free day care, paid for by the employer.
We keep adding and adding to the cost of doing business and to the resulting cost of what we buy...and then cry when business goes overseas because we won't pay the prices they must charge to operate inside our own country. Every time we increase the cost of business we increase the cost of what we buy, but somehow we forget what will happen, or maybe just pretend it won't happen THIS time. But it always does, and we are paying an enormous cost, beyond financial, for those foolish actions.
Private contracts between two consenting entities (person or business) is not the affair of government, outside of rare cases like the RLA. In those rare cases it is up to govt. to protect both business AND employee, not simply give away the company profits to greedy employees.Well hell, with comments like yours it's no wonder I have trouble finding places to jump in. It would be like talking to myself. ^5
Since I'm here, your idea about allowing employees to use 'unscheduled' vacation days to cover sick days seems logical to me. Employers would benefit, so I suspect few would have a problem with it.
GA"Since I'm here, your idea about allowing employees to use 'unscheduled' vacation days to cover sick days seems logical to me. Employers would benefit, so I suspect few would have a problem with it."
If management were truly amenable to this idea, there would be no need for this debate. I doubt that they would even consider this reasonable of a compromiseI don't see why employers would be against it. They have already paid for a day's labor cost with each vacation day earned. Instead of paying for that 'lost' labor twice—the vacation day plus the cost of the replacement labor, they would only pay for lost "sick" labor once, via the use of the vacation day.
As an employer, I would go for it. It makes sense to pay once instead of twice.
GAVacation days have to be scheduled. If you wake up in the morning and have a respiratory virus like COVID, and forgot to schedule a vacation day so you could be ill, you are going to go to work and spread the virus around.
This lesson should have been learned during the pandemic. It is in the employers best interest to allow sick days.For clarity, my thoughts are on the idea (as proposed by Wilderness a page or two back), that employers should allow sick days to be used, (by the sick employee), as unscheduled vacation days. Not to the 'scheduling' requirements that many employers use. I would say most employers but anecdotal examples give the impression that many non-big-corporation employers already allow employees this option.
We're talking about a hypothetical solution. I see it like this:
The employer is committed to paying for a day's labor he will not get for every vacation day credited to the employee. That's not a bad thing or a 'sacrifice' by the employer, it is simply part of a voluntary deal.
The employee knows there is no sick-day compensation and takes the job. Again a voluntary deal. That's not a bad thing or a 'sacrifice' for the employee either, it's part of a voluntary agreement.
The loss of compensation is on the employee. It is not the obligation of the employer. That sounds cold but it is simply the logic of reality—at the most basic level of this employee/employer issue. That is why I think the 'demands' that PTO is a right, or 'rightness' are wrong.
To skip all the details between that starting point and Wilderness' point that one solution is the use of vacation days to compensate for sick days, I see it as being in the best interests of both sides. The employee doesn't lose compensation and the employer doesn't have to pay twice for the same labor.
I think any extra cost to the employer, primarily to fight abuse, would be more than covered by the benefits of stability in the employer's relationship with the employee. I don't see why any employer* would be against it
*I fought the urge to say 'sensible' employer.
GA"I don't see why any employer* would be against it"
Just as an example, I once worked for a small business (usually around 25 employees, ranging from 10 to 100) that gave vacation days in response to a union attempt.
That was fine, but they allowed employees to take it in the form of hours; a weeks vacation was 40 hours and it could be taken by the hour if desired.
It overwhelmed the one person office. Eventually it was taken away and a simple raise given in exchange, with employees responsible for saving enough to cover their time off.
So yes, it can be a hassle to employers, though less so as computers have taken over office functions. And it can be controlled so there is no real problem anyway. My company just didn't do it right.Yep, it looks like they didn't do it right.
GA
I can work with the employers allowing employees immediate absence due to illness, even if it deducted from vacation time. The point is that there has to be a manner in which employees can take a vacation day off when sick that does not require notifying employers long before they know that they would be sick.
Yep, that was the idea. It's really nothing more than an accounting thing. If sick days are going to happen anyway scheduling isn't a factor. The only factor is moving a debit and credit accounting entry sent to payroll.
If we bring that idea to the RR issue, then this change in employer policy solves the workers' need for extra PTO compensation. They go from wanting 7 days to having at least 21 days.
GAFor the railway industry, scheduling is the ultimate factor. A major part of the sick time issue is that industry experts and union officials say the railroad companies no longer have enough workers to cover for absent colleagues because of the switch in recent years to “precision scheduled railroading,” Under the precision scheduling, instead of running trains that carried just one type of product, which left trains waiting for long stretches before they had enough load to depart, rail companies now have more trains carrying a mix of goods on a set schedule. Fixed scheduling also allows them to use the same crew more often than they could have under the old system, leading to job cuts within the industry. These workers are on call almost 24/7 and when their calls are not met by the employee they have "points" deducted that can add up to sanctions up to dismissal. I think the scheduling is at the heart of the matter. These railways are being run with skeleton crews operating on very little sleep in order to boost the company's bottom line. I'd go as far as to say that sick days are a matter of safety.
Some employers though, usually big corporation employers that have no contact with their workers, do not realize that it is also in their best interest to allow sick days. (You cannot schedule sick days so the whole argument about using a vacation day does not work.) I would not want one of my employees to show up with a respiratory virus (flu, cold, COVID) and spread it to me or other people they came into contact with.
Is it a right? No, not in the US. Is it in the best interest of the employer? Definitely. I also would not use "sensible" employer!
As to Wilderness´ other point about the abuse of sick days, I realize he is correct as it does happen at times. You could also say the same thing about people cheating the SS system by claiming disability benefits. Just because someone does that are we to say that no one should receive disability benefits?
How do you figure? It would save all the way around for business, while employees would be denied additional PTO. Seems to me it is the employees who would be against it, as it does not satisfy their greed for more money/less work.
Really? I would be amazed if employers accept that arrangement, it appears more important to them to determine when people can be absent and under what circumstances. The sudden malady of an employee requiring their request for immediate absence does not figure into that plan.
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
Related Discussions
- 3
The Adverse Unintended Consequences of Paid Sick Leave
by ga anderson 4 years ago
To correctly reflect the point of this blog post the title should be expanded to:The Adverse Unintended Consequences of [Government Mandated] Paid Sick Leave"Democrats in Congress have a cure for the coronavirus crisis: a nationwide paid sick-leave mandate. …Ms. Murray and Ms. DeLauro began...
- 14
Sick leave - do you take it or let it go?
by Damodar Bashyal 11 years ago
Sick leave - do you take it or let it go?We get 10 sick leave days a year but if we don't take it, it's not carried over to next year. So what's your view on it. will you take at-least half of those days as sick leave or just let it go?
- 30
Non-compete contracts: something only true Republicans can love
by Credence2 65 minutes ago
Just one example of exploitation of labor by corporate capitalists that I have warned about before. Living in Hawaii for a time, much of that was common and it is what I consider a dirty trick. It is high time that this practice gets confronted. Conservatives love to screw the little guy,...
- 15
Obama Wants Your Wallet!
by Dan Harmon 8 years ago
Obama has now decided that forcing you to pay "prevailing wage" (read as "union wages") for all government contracts isn't enough - he now demands that you pay workers for not working as well. Called "sick leave", the 7 days he now demands you pay for without...
- 51
Amazon makes workers wait, but won't pay them for the time.
by Scott Belford 9 years ago
This situation is this. A warehouse workers spends the day doing their job. When their done, they can spend up to 25 unpaid minutes, it seems, waiting to go through security to make sure they didn't steal anything.Apparently this is quite legal, at the federal level anyway. The...
- 113
More Evidence Of The Real Union Agenda
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/22/f … w-capital/Yeah sure the unions are for working Americans! No! They are the new radicals the subversives that wish to destroy this nation rather than give up on their grip of the American tax payers' purse! These people are as evil as their socialist...