5 ms·

I agree with the sentiment of your post. I can absorb a 10% bump in prices without really blinking. But the bottom 50% of Americans cannot. I wish it was as cu

I agree with the sentiment of your post. I can absorb a 10% bump in prices without really blinking. But the bottom 50% of Americans cannot. I wish it was as cut and dry as telling them to just strike, but I don’t think it’s that simple.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
The bottom 50% can strike and request the share they need to survive the price hike too. All boats rise.
laweijfmvo 4y ago
It's not the railroad workers' fault that half of Americans can't afford food and basic necessities.
- bumby 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but policy is often not crafted on just the concept of fairness, but also other considerations like the stability of society.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    No, it is crafted on the stability of asset prices to benefit asset owners. If stability of society was the goal, then workers in the US would have a minimum wage tied to CPI, and minimum PTO, etc. The way events seem to unfold is that asset owners get to take societal stability to the brink to maximize profits, and then non asset owners are the ones forced to blink to prevent societal instability. Aka privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
    - bumby 4y ago
      I tend to agree. It's unfortunate, but some of the primary ways we use to measure stability and health is strictly economics, both societally and individually.
  - laweijfmvo 4y ago
    Maybe (In the US) we need society to fail a little bit. "Christmas to be canceled," as the President likes to say when justifying why the railworkers will have to accept not having sick days.
runesofdoom 4y ago
The government could nationalize the railroads. (There's even precedent.) But instead they get the same treatment the airlines do: public support for private profit.
- marmetio 4y ago
  Between the extremes of doing nothing to maintain the status quo and nationalizing an industry, there are countless options. Many of which would be more realistic, more palatable, and more beneficial. In fact, nationalization is so repulsive to most politicians voters that suggesting it is an effective tactic to squash efforts to create meaningful change. A beneficial suggestion would seek to address issues in a way that could be realistically achieved by balancing competing interests.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > Many of which would be more realistic, more palatable, and more beneficial. In fact, nationalization is so repulsive to most politicians voters that suggesting it is an effective tactic to squash efforts to create meaningful change. Why though? Railways are a natural monopoly and critical infrastructure, so either they have to be state owned or heavily regulated.
    - marmetio 4y ago
      Right, so regulation would be the middle ground between state-owned (nationalized) and unregulated.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Union pacific alone is worth 132 billion dollars. Nationalizing the railroads would probably cost $500 billion and then they would lose money because they'd pay their workers a reasonable amount instead of what is happening now.
soupfordummies 4y ago
I haven't followed this super closely (as an aside, it's also really discouraging how little I've seen this story talked about. Buried in the newspapers, etc) but am I off base in thinking that gov't could have just sided with the workers and req'd the railroads to give sick days rather than just siding with the RRs and saying "no sick days"? Wow what a run-on sentence! :P
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  The trade off seemed to come down to "sick days for workers" vs. "lower costs for consumers" The government went with "lower costs for consumers" Why "mandate on-call employees to cover sick employees" wasn't an option, I don't know.
  - fineIllregister 4y ago
    > The trade off seemed to come down to "sick days for workers" vs. "lower costs for consumers" It doesn't have to raise prices. The costs imposed by the sick days (millions) are absolutely dwarfed by annual profits (billions).
    - Workaccount2 4y ago
      I think the issue is that the railroads are running thin crews and extremely tight schedules. So Jim the engineer calling in 3 hours before he is due to commandeer 2,500 tons of freight for 500 miles creates a dire situation that not only delays that train, but throws off the schedule of dozens of other trains. I'm just hypothesizing here, and I feel like I am missing something since it doesn't seem like having/adding on-call employees was an option.
      - fineIllregister 4y ago
        I'm not sure what you're talking about. The railway companies estimate the costs of the sick time to be in the millions. See their official submission to the President here: https://ble-t.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PEB_250_Recommendation_2022.pdf https://ble-t.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PEB_250_Recomme... They would have considered everything you mentioned in their cost estimate.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

The bottom 50% can strike and request the share they need to survive the price hike too. All boats rise.

laweijfmvo 4y ago

It's not the railroad workers' fault that half of Americans can't afford food and basic necessities.

bumby 4y ago
You're not wrong, but policy is often not crafted on just the concept of fairness, but also other considerations like the stability of society.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  No, it is crafted on the stability of asset prices to benefit asset owners. If stability of society was the goal, then workers in the US would have a minimum wage tied to CPI, and minimum PTO, etc. The way events seem to unfold is that asset owners get to take societal stability to the brink to maximize profits, and then non asset owners are the ones forced to blink to prevent societal instability. Aka privatize the profits, socialize the losses.
  - bumby 4y ago
    I tend to agree. It's unfortunate, but some of the primary ways we use to measure stability and health is strictly economics, both societally and individually.
- laweijfmvo 4y ago
  Maybe (In the US) we need society to fail a little bit. "Christmas to be canceled," as the President likes to say when justifying why the railworkers will have to accept not having sick days.

runesofdoom 4y ago

The government could nationalize the railroads. (There's even precedent.) But instead they get the same treatment the airlines do: public support for private profit.

marmetio 4y ago
Between the extremes of doing nothing to maintain the status quo and nationalizing an industry, there are countless options. Many of which would be more realistic, more palatable, and more beneficial. In fact, nationalization is so repulsive to most politicians voters that suggesting it is an effective tactic to squash efforts to create meaningful change. A beneficial suggestion would seek to address issues in a way that could be realistically achieved by balancing competing interests.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Many of which would be more realistic, more palatable, and more beneficial. In fact, nationalization is so repulsive to most politicians voters that suggesting it is an effective tactic to squash efforts to create meaningful change. Why though? Railways are a natural monopoly and critical infrastructure, so either they have to be state owned or heavily regulated.
  - marmetio 4y ago
    Right, so regulation would be the middle ground between state-owned (nationalized) and unregulated.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
Union pacific alone is worth 132 billion dollars. Nationalizing the railroads would probably cost $500 billion and then they would lose money because they'd pay their workers a reasonable amount instead of what is happening now.

soupfordummies 4y ago

I haven't followed this super closely (as an aside, it's also really discouraging how little I've seen this story talked about. Buried in the newspapers, etc) but am I off base in thinking that gov't could have just sided with the workers and req'd the railroads to give sick days rather than just siding with the RRs and saying "no sick days"? Wow what a run-on sentence! :P

Workaccount2 4y ago
The trade off seemed to come down to "sick days for workers" vs. "lower costs for consumers" The government went with "lower costs for consumers" Why "mandate on-call employees to cover sick employees" wasn't an option, I don't know.
- fineIllregister 4y ago
  > The trade off seemed to come down to "sick days for workers" vs. "lower costs for consumers" It doesn't have to raise prices. The costs imposed by the sick days (millions) are absolutely dwarfed by annual profits (billions).
  - Workaccount2 4y ago
    I think the issue is that the railroads are running thin crews and extremely tight schedules. So Jim the engineer calling in 3 hours before he is due to commandeer 2,500 tons of freight for 500 miles creates a dire situation that not only delays that train, but throws off the schedule of dozens of other trains. I'm just hypothesizing here, and I feel like I am missing something since it doesn't seem like having/adding on-call employees was an option.
    - fineIllregister 4y ago
      I'm not sure what you're talking about. The railway companies estimate the costs of the sick time to be in the millions. See their official submission to the President here: https://ble-t.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PEB_250_Recommendation_2022.pdf https://ble-t.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/PEB_250_Recomme... They would have considered everything you mentioned in their cost estimate.