(11-29-2022 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  They aren't going to try and nationalize the railroads? Are they?

does it matter at this point? that's akin to comparing a democrat to a socialist ... #synonymous

@21stCenturyNWO

(11-29-2022 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 10:42 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

They are completely correct that the Dems don't care about them, but Trump and the GOP couldn't be less pro union. If you want to vote for the party who is actually going to support unions over the corporate bosses... yeah I don't know it's neither of them.

nobody will argue they're both sleeping with that lobby group ... it's just one fk's up the arse a li'l harder ... and dems like it like that! it's sadomasochism at its finest...

Joe knows Railroads.. Ask the dead man that congratulated Joe, years after said worker died, for riding a million miles on Amtrack.

From what Ive gathered the sticking point surrounds the number of days off a worker gets to go to Doc appts and such. Im going to say what they have NOW is fine. Depending on longevity they get between 3-5 weeks payed vacation and holidays and 10-14 days personal time. Most American have never had that much time off from work and seem to be able to handle getting to a doctors appointment. What they have now is perfectly adequate to do that.

Since the President could not get a deal...Congress should end this now.

(11-29-2022 02:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  From what Ive gathered the sticking point surrounds the number of days off a worker gets to go to Doc appts and such. Im going to say what they have NOW is fine. Depending on longevity they get between 3-5 weeks payed vacation and holidays and 10-14 days personal time. Most American have never had that much time off from work and seem to be able to handle getting to a doctors appointment. What they have now is perfectly adequate to do that.

Since the President could not get a deal...Congress should end this now.

The number of days isn't the issue. The issue is they can't take of time for a death or family illness if they are scheduled to be on a train. They can't take any unscheduled time off. Something along those lines.

(11-29-2022 03:02 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 02:55 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  From what Ive gathered the sticking point surrounds the number of days off a worker gets to go to Doc appts and such. Im going to say what they have NOW is fine. Depending on longevity they get between 3-5 weeks payed vacation and holidays and 10-14 days personal time. Most American have never had that much time off from work and seem to be able to handle getting to a doctors appointment. What they have now is perfectly adequate to do that.

Since the President could not get a deal...Congress should end this now.

The number of days isn't the issue. The issue is they can't take of time for a death or family illness if they are scheduled to be on a train. They can't take any unscheduled time off. Something along those lines.

The CNBC article I read this morning did not mention that. Evidently the 10-14 days personal time is the sticking point. Im a bit confused as to what those days are for? I thought the personal time was for the things you described. I can see the death issue being valid..but appointments are another thing. They are scheduled.

F the Union leadership who sold their hard-working members down the river by agreeing to delay the strike until after the election to increase their personal kick-backs from the lying criminal Communists at the DNC and admin. Pathetic. The union rank and file should rise up against their own leaders first and get rid of them. Garbage.

The great uniter just doin' some more unitin'.....

(11-29-2022 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  They aren't going to try and nationalize the railroads? Are they?

And the ghost of Ayn Rand looks on...

Who do most billionaires vote for?

(11-29-2022 04:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Who do most billionaires vote for?

the one's they can control...

Quote:In Biden’s statement, he makes it clear that the concerns he places above the worker’s requests for paid sick days are economics, supply lines, and yes, the holidays. Biden is not siding with workers or their labor unions who voted down the proposed agreement; he is instead siding with, well, himself. It’s a rare and ironic move for the “most pro-union president ever”, as he has previously been referenced by both union leadership and well, himself.

If this was an illegal strike, it would be adjudicated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), but it is indeed the right of the bargaining unit to strike, fully legal and codified, and other rail unions would likely join in solidarity. There is no fault on the workers or unions whatsoever, they have a vote in the matter and voted against the agreement. They are all acting appropriately per the rules of the game (laws and regulations) and per the last roughly 100 years of labor dogma. In short: we knew they were going to strike, they have cause and legal ground, and they would probably get their sick days, too.

What is hyper-irregular is for the government (specifically Congress) to act in forcing a private contract. Under the Rail Labor Agreement (RLA), courts can enjoin a strike under specific circumstances. Instead, both the executive branch and Democrat Congressional leadership are pre-emptively derailing a right to strike and making up their own private contracts with the force of federal law.

This has huge implications, some unfathomable at first blush.

It means that private contracts are subject to the preferences of lawmakers and executive attitudes. It means that collective bargaining is a mere veneer for what would be best for those in Washington at any given time. It means private commerce and agreements are at the pleasure of the crown and are in reality public/private “partnerships”. It’s… some form of neo-feudalism.

This executive and congressional action is politics on steroids. It appears that the public sentiment caused if Americans couldn’t obtain certain goods ahead of the Christmas season, or had to pay premiums on those goods, would see to it that the unpopular President and Democrats would feel the backlash in the 2024 elections. Economics was a major factor in the 2022 midterms and now they are posturing with partisan protectionism at the cost of the private sector’s rights.

Link

CP, this is burn-biatch-burn stylin'....













y'all ain' seen shite, yet!

(11-29-2022 04:29 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:In Biden’s statement, he makes it clear that the concerns he places above the worker’s requests for paid sick days are economics, supply lines, and yes, the holidays. Biden is not siding with workers or their labor unions who voted down the proposed agreement; he is instead siding with, well, himself. It’s a rare and ironic move for the “most pro-union president ever”, as he has previously been referenced by both union leadership and well, himself.

If this was an illegal strike, it would be adjudicated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), but it is indeed the right of the bargaining unit to strike, fully legal and codified, and other rail unions would likely join in solidarity. There is no fault on the workers or unions whatsoever, they have a vote in the matter and voted against the agreement. They are all acting appropriately per the rules of the game (laws and regulations) and per the last roughly 100 years of labor dogma. In short: we knew they were going to strike, they have cause and legal ground, and they would probably get their sick days, too.

What is hyper-irregular is for the government (specifically Congress) to act in forcing a private contract. Under the Rail Labor Agreement (RLA), courts can enjoin a strike under specific circumstances. Instead, both the executive branch and Democrat Congressional leadership are pre-emptively derailing a right to strike and making up their own private contracts with the force of federal law.

This has huge implications, some unfathomable at first blush.

It means that private contracts are subject to the preferences of lawmakers and executive attitudes. It means that collective bargaining is a mere veneer for what would be best for those in Washington at any given time. It means private commerce and agreements are at the pleasure of the crown and are in reality public/private “partnerships”. It’s… some form of neo-feudalism.

This executive and congressional action is politics on steroids. It appears that the public sentiment caused if Americans couldn’t obtain certain goods ahead of the Christmas season, or had to pay premiums on those goods, would see to it that the unpopular President and Democrats would feel the backlash in the 2024 elections. Economics was a major factor in the 2022 midterms and now they are posturing with partisan protectionism at the cost of the private sector’s rights.

Link

I think they strike even if Congress or Joe says they can't.

(11-29-2022 04:39 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 04:29 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Quote:In Biden’s statement, he makes it clear that the concerns he places above the worker’s requests for paid sick days are economics, supply lines, and yes, the holidays. Biden is not siding with workers or their labor unions who voted down the proposed agreement; he is instead siding with, well, himself. It’s a rare and ironic move for the “most pro-union president ever”, as he has previously been referenced by both union leadership and well, himself.

If this was an illegal strike, it would be adjudicated by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), but it is indeed the right of the bargaining unit to strike, fully legal and codified, and other rail unions would likely join in solidarity. There is no fault on the workers or unions whatsoever, they have a vote in the matter and voted against the agreement. They are all acting appropriately per the rules of the game (laws and regulations) and per the last roughly 100 years of labor dogma. In short: we knew they were going to strike, they have cause and legal ground, and they would probably get their sick days, too.

What is hyper-irregular is for the government (specifically Congress) to act in forcing a private contract. Under the Rail Labor Agreement (RLA), courts can enjoin a strike under specific circumstances. Instead, both the executive branch and Democrat Congressional leadership are pre-emptively derailing a right to strike and making up their own private contracts with the force of federal law.

This has huge implications, some unfathomable at first blush.

It means that private contracts are subject to the preferences of lawmakers and executive attitudes. It means that collective bargaining is a mere veneer for what would be best for those in Washington at any given time. It means private commerce and agreements are at the pleasure of the crown and are in reality public/private “partnerships”. It’s… some form of neo-feudalism.

This executive and congressional action is politics on steroids. It appears that the public sentiment caused if Americans couldn’t obtain certain goods ahead of the Christmas season, or had to pay premiums on those goods, would see to it that the unpopular President and Democrats would feel the backlash in the 2024 elections. Economics was a major factor in the 2022 midterms and now they are posturing with partisan protectionism at the cost of the private sector’s rights.

Link

I think they strike even if Congress or Joe says they can't.

We'll see Tough Guy Joe show his sensitive side, with a tear in his eye talking to someone in the media..

I told them they couldn't strike and they did anyway!

(11-29-2022 04:28 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 04:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Who do most billionaires vote for?

the one's they can control...

Truest thing ever posted on this board.

(11-29-2022 04:28 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 04:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Who do most billionaires vote for?

the one's they can control...

Stink...Ive been waiting on something you post that I could understand...Well done!

(11-29-2022 10:06 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 09:57 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  I am not a big fan of unions. I am not a big fan of the American people being made to suffer. I am not a big fan of this administration. So while seeing this administration embarrass themselves is a huge plus, to do so at the expense of the American people, and if it comes from actions undertaken by a union, it all has me a bit conflicted.

I am not a union guy either. There was a time decades ago when unions were absolutely necessary to bring fairness to rate of pay and benefits for the common worker.

In today's society union's serve a little more than another business in and of themselves. You see someone like Randi Weitgarten (for one example) making a healthy 6 figure salary (if not more) and ask what exactly is she doing? Teachers are still grossly underpaid considering the role that a teacher has in the development of our children and all she talks about is covid lockdowns and curriculum that has nothing to do with reading, writing and even basic math.
Teachers should give themselves a raise by simply keeping their union dues.


The basic problem with unions today is their blind protection for the poor performers. Too much coasting and not enough improvement and goal accountability. They want more money, but produce less which limits what they can earn - it is a vicious circle.

Spot on. I witnessed I first hand when I first hired on at BellSouth. I was told that I worked too fast and produced too much and that I needed to join the union so that I wouldn't have to do that. I told the guy that I was old fashioned and believed that if I was being paid for 8 hours that I owed my employer 8 hours of productive work and that no thanks, I wouldn't be joining their union. 10 years later, by which time I moved into management, union participation was down by about 70%.

(11-29-2022 01:28 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 10:42 AM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

They are completely correct that the Dems don't care about them, but Trump and the GOP couldn't be less pro union. If you want to vote for the party who is actually going to support unions over the corporate bosses... yeah I don't know it's neither of them.

If you support unions that says all I need to know about you.

(11-29-2022 04:28 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(11-29-2022 04:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Who do most billionaires vote for?

the one's they can control...

absofuqnlutely.