What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

What does that mean?

[Tonitrus]

If Congress and the POTUS can force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies...why couldn't they alternately force the railroad companies to accept the demands of the workers (or force both to accept something that meets somewhat halfway)?

[PJL]

I'm maybe the most anti-union guy here and I think it was a bad call.  Saving the economy and saving Christmas are not sufficient reasons to do what they did.

Disagree about you being anti-union. I can see why they did it - similar legislation is in France & being proposed here too. I think it's more you becoming a lot more left wing than you realise.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If Congress and the POTUS can force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies...why couldn't they alternately force the railroad companies to accept the demands of the workers (or force both to accept something that meets somewhat halfway)?

They somewhat could--they tried to add 7 paid sick days to the deal, but enough Senators voted against it for that to be added to the agreement. Note that while I empathize with the railway workers, it isn't actually the case that they don't have paid sick days, they have relatively decent numbers of PTO days, they just aren't specifically classified as "sick days."

As an example under the current contract BNSF new employees get 26 paid days off per year (this is a first year employee, this goes up with years of service). This includes if they wake up sick they can call in sick and take a PTO day. I frankly think the unions and the press kind of want to obscure that fact, they make it sound like you literally can never take time off to go to the doctor or if you're suddenly sick, and that isn't true.

Now what is true, is because of the unique staffing concerns of the railroads, most use a complex "availability points" system. You lose points for every absence that is not pre-approved. But you start with 30 points, and the loss of points is based on variable amounts per day missed. A "high need" day, like the Monday after the Super Bowl or Christmas Day, is docked 7 points--but again, only if you don't work without notice, i.e. you call in sick. It isn't crazy unreasonable in a 24/7/365 business where you're sometimes expected to work on holidays and other days when many people take off, that if you weren't able to get that day off pre-scheduled, there might be some sanction if you "get sick" the day after the Super Bowl or whatever.

That's the most points you get docked is 7, some absences are less. Additionally, every 14 consecutive days in a row you are available to work you gain 4 points. Note that a typical train crew is part of a "run sheet" 24/7/365, so basically every 14 calendar days that you don't take an absence, you gain 4 points. You do not actually work 14 days in a row, obviously. The run sheets basically are a rotation, you go on a run, which might be 36 hours away from home usually 2/3rd of which is compensated work time with some down time, and then you are back home and are now at the bottom of the run sheet (with caveats), as they staff additional runs, you don't get called in again until all the guys in front of you on the run sheet have already been called. Once you're called, you have 2 hours to get to the train and begin your run. If you are called and can't come for whatever reason, that docks you points and you go back to the bottom of the sheet--if you for whatever reason have no PTO left you also lose out on pay, if you've taken a PTO day you would get paid a certain number of hours i.e. if you took PTO for sick to make up for missing on a run.

Some lines have more "beneficial" cadences, and there's a lot of seniority in the system--the more senior guys get the best routes and also there is some degree of getting more opportunities to get called in based on seniority, the system actually "rewards" seniority with (if you want it) fairly robust odds of working 50+ hours a week, which the train workers like because they make their nut on overtime. There are rules around the crews needing certain amounts of off time, and there are limits to when they can force you in if you're over the overtime limit--but again, in normal operation most rail guys want OT hours--based on how they're paid OT is a huge difference in the amount of money they make annually.

As a comparison to a more typical scheduled hourly job, imagine if you had an employee who just took repeated unpaid days off, to the point they were basically no longer full time workers for a position that was expected to be full-time. Most employers would sanction an employee for that.

[grumbler]

If Congress and the POTUS can force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies...why couldn't they alternately force the railroad companies to accept the demands of the workers (or force both to accept something that meets somewhat halfway)?

The new law codifies the tentative agreement that the unions and railroads had already agreed to.  Several of the unions thought that their negotiators hadn't gotten enough in terms of paid sick time, so refused to ratify. 

It is not at all accurate to describe the forced deal as one that "force the union to accept the terms demanded by the railroad companies."  The deal raises the average wage for the workers to over US$100k/yr.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW jobs like electric power plant worker, train crews etc always have crazy scheduling like this because they are operations that need to run continuously. At least among blue collar people I've known, these are highly coveted jobs, railway jobs in general there are usually dozens or more applicants for any chance to get into the system. These are union jobs where you basically enjoy tenure after some seniority, do not require a college degree and once you've moved up the system and start getting guaranteed overtime all the time, you can be making over $100k with the current scheme, the new contract raises the wage rates by 24% over 2 years I believe.

You also get a traditional 401k and the railroad retirement system, which replaces Social Security but pays (depending on other factors) no less than ~35% more than a typical social security benefit and in some cases 100% more. It also fully vests at age 60 without penalty, you can't get a social security disbursement until age 62--and that is a reduced benefit.

[Admiral Yi]

Disagree about you being anti-union. I can see why they did it - similar legislation is in France & being proposed here too. I think it's more you becoming a lot more left wing than you realise.

I'm not opposed because i think the unions are getting gypped; I'm opposed because the government is interfering with the right of private parties to freely contract.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Disagree about you being anti-union. I can see why they did it - similar legislation is in France & being proposed here too. I think it's more you becoming a lot more left wing than you realise.

I'm not opposed because i think the unions are getting gypped; I'm opposed because the government is interfering with the right of private parties to freely contract.

As per a 1926 law that basically says the government gets to do a lot of stuff with railways that override the private right to contract. Keep in mind basically the entire rail system was built on public land grants that were not sold out in anything like a free market, and often times with significant subsidy.

[Syt]

Happy Infamy Day!

[The Brain]

Today instead of June 6? I'm confused now.

[Barrister]

It's probably worth noting that the US military was so un-woke that it was segregated, and it did not in fact manage to fend off the Japanese at Pearl Harbour...

[FunkMonk]

Happy Infamy Day!

Shitlords who spout this shit almost never have interacted with actual service members at all in their lonely and pathetic lives.

[Valmy]

Happy Infamy Day!

I mean the military in 1941 didn't fend off the attack so maybe we should give the inclusive one a shot.

[The Larch]

Kyrsten Sinema goes independent days after Democrats secure Senate majority
Arizona senator swaps party affiliation and says she will not caucus with Republicans

The US senator Kyrsten Sinema has switched her political affiliation to independent, leaving the Democratic party just days after it won a Senate race in Georgia to secure a 51st seat in the chamber.

"I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington. I registered as an Arizona independent," she said in an op-ed for Arizona Central, a local media outlet.

In a separate Politico interview published on Friday, Sinema said she would not caucus with the Republican party. If that holds, Democrats could still maintain greater governing control in the closely divided chamber.

Democrats had held the Senate 50-50, with the vice-president, Kamala Harris, holding a tie-breaking vote. Raphael Warnock's victory in Tuesday's runoff election in Georgia handed them their 51st seat.

Two other senators – Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine – are registered as independents but generally caucus with Democrats.

Sinema said her shift came as a growing number of people in her state were also declaring themselves politically independent, rejecting the Republican and Democratic political labels.

"Like a lot of Arizonans, I have never fit perfectly in either national party,"
she wrote.

[OttoVonBismarck]

In the short term (next 2 years) Sinema's move likely changes nothing, as noted she will continue to caucus with the Democrats, so instead of being a party with 49 Senators and 2 allied Independents, they are now a party with 48 Senators and 3 allied Independents. Given Sinema's voting record I am skeptical it really moves the needle.

The big question is 2024, is she doing this to try and bypass a primary from the left in '24 and daring the Democrats to treat her like they do Angus King and Bernie (the Democrats do not run opponents in those States, effectively letting the two independent Senators only have to win head-to-head against Republicans.) If so, I don't think it will work. Like with a lot of things, this isn't some big wigs in a DNC office who make that decision, it's a local decision in Arizona and the Arizona DNC is vehemently against Sinema. Gallegos is going to run in 2024. If Sinema chooses to run as an independent that won't save her Senate seat. It could easily give the seat to the GOP though, we'll have to see if that is what Sinema is angling for, because after she costs the party the seat in '24 her career as an elected politician will be over and her career as whatever she's been taking bribes to do for the last 4 years will begin.

At least with current polling she would have like less than a 5% chance of winning a three way general in Arizona--while she has alienated Democrats in the last two years, she hasn't made herself particularly popular as a candidate among Republicans, a number of polls there show that GOP voters do not consider her a viable option for their votes. That could change if the GOP nominates someone on the Kari Lake spectrum, but if they nominate a generically competent candidate Sinema will sieve almost no GOP votes, but will probably sieve away a chunk of Democrat votes and throw the election to the Republicans.

My guess is she may think she can pull a "Murkowski." Lisa Murkowski lost her primary election to a Tea Party Republican many years ago, but ran a write-in campaign in the general--which she won. She was immediately back in the good graces of the Republican party after winning. I assume Sinema imagines a scenario where she wins a hard fought campaign as an independent, and that afterwards the Arizona Democratic party begrudgingly agrees to treat her like Angus King / Bernie Sanders are treated in their states. I think the part of that plan that won't work is the "winning the election" part, and after she's cost the Democrats that seat for 6 years she will be unlikely to be a viable candidate for any form of election anywhere.