5 ms·

>>>Fuck the shareholders. Strike. Yes, I am absolutely willing to pay more in the short term for things so that people are treated with a little basic human dec

>>>Fuck the shareholders. Strike. Yes, I am absolutely willing to pay more in the short term for things so that people are treated with a little basic human decency. Each day the rail industry strikes costs 2 billion dollars. This type of loss would most certainly have a permanent effect on prices. Given how bad inflation is currently, this would further drive inflation higher. This complicates the decision to strike when people are already having trouble affording basic necessities as it is.

chii 4y ago
it is not the worker's responsibility to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of the wider society (such as lowering inflationary pressure by not striking).
- bumby 4y ago
  By that same logic, it's not the shareholders responsibility to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of larger society. Taking that approach is a prisoners dilemma.
  - naasking 4y ago
    You're right, it's not their responsibility to give up their cushy profits, it's the government's responsibility to ensure its citizens rights are protected, such as their right to strike.
    - bumby 4y ago
      >such as their right to strike. True, but like all rights, they aren't unlimited. There are both lawful and unlawful strikes and the delineation between the two is sometimes hard to determine.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Total comp by class 1 rail employees is $130k a year [0]. I support their right to strike. It should not be impeded in any form. I also support the right for society to take back all the land they freely gave for use of the railroads, and then to rent it back by imposing a tax against the paycheck of railroad workers equal to whatever gains they made by shutting down freight to the US. [0] https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/ https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/
      - bumby 4y ago
        Note that is "total compensation" and not salary. That means it's factoring in fringe benefits, like health insurance, time off, retirement, relocation benefits, etc. I'm not saying it should be disregarded, just that it's important to note that distinction for comparison's sake. By comparison, there's some sites online touting $400k average total compensation for SV computer scientists. More to your point, why would you tax the employees rather than the company that actually has the land easement? The former seems to absolve the shareholders while the latter would likely affect both the shareholders and the employees.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Labor is neither perfectly elastic nor perfectly in-elastic. Therefore it is fallacious to presume it would absolve the shareholders. Taxes on employment, taxed against the employee, actually get split between the employer and employee as the employer competes on the labor market and is forced to repay some of the tax in the form of elevated pre-tax wages. That is the tax is only nominally only on the employee.
        bumby 4y ago
        Rail is a near monopoly * (or at least a cartel), so it doesn’t have the same market forces to make that thesis work. There are enormous barriers to entry that prevent much competition, so employees have little market from which to choose. Meaning it shifts the power away from the employee in favor of the employer. * this is one of the reasons Warren Buffet invested in rail a decade or so ago.
JohnFen 4y ago
It is a sick society that can decide that some people can be sacrificed just to make things a bit cheaper.
efficax 4y ago
the rail companies could avoid a strike by agreeing on the sick leave terms and hiring more workers to add slack to the system. why aren’t they to blame? this is a system where people are dying on the job because they can’t take time to see a doctor. where they can’t help out if their family is sick. how this lasted through covid is beyond my imagination,
tomrod 4y ago
> This type of loss would most certainly have a permanent effect on prices. Given how bad inflation is currently, this would further drive inflation higher. This complicates the decision to strike when people are already having trouble affording basic necessities as it is. Sure would. Sounds like the railroad should give sick days or be nationalized.

chii 4y ago

it is not the worker's responsibility to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of the wider society (such as lowering inflationary pressure by not striking).

bumby 4y ago
By that same logic, it's not the shareholders responsibility to sacrifice their own interests for the interests of larger society. Taking that approach is a prisoners dilemma.
- naasking 4y ago
  You're right, it's not their responsibility to give up their cushy profits, it's the government's responsibility to ensure its citizens rights are protected, such as their right to strike.
  - bumby 4y ago
    >such as their right to strike. True, but like all rights, they aren't unlimited. There are both lawful and unlawful strikes and the delineation between the two is sometimes hard to determine.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Total comp by class 1 rail employees is $130k a year [0]. I support their right to strike. It should not be impeded in any form. I also support the right for society to take back all the land they freely gave for use of the railroads, and then to rent it back by imposing a tax against the paycheck of railroad workers equal to whatever gains they made by shutting down freight to the US. [0] https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/ https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/
    - bumby 4y ago
      Note that is "total compensation" and not salary. That means it's factoring in fringe benefits, like health insurance, time off, retirement, relocation benefits, etc. I'm not saying it should be disregarded, just that it's important to note that distinction for comparison's sake. By comparison, there's some sites online touting $400k average total compensation for SV computer scientists. More to your point, why would you tax the employees rather than the company that actually has the land easement? The former seems to absolve the shareholders while the latter would likely affect both the shareholders and the employees.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Labor is neither perfectly elastic nor perfectly in-elastic. Therefore it is fallacious to presume it would absolve the shareholders. Taxes on employment, taxed against the employee, actually get split between the employer and employee as the employer competes on the labor market and is forced to repay some of the tax in the form of elevated pre-tax wages. That is the tax is only nominally only on the employee.
        bumby 4y ago
        Rail is a near monopoly * (or at least a cartel), so it doesn’t have the same market forces to make that thesis work. There are enormous barriers to entry that prevent much competition, so employees have little market from which to choose. Meaning it shifts the power away from the employee in favor of the employer. * this is one of the reasons Warren Buffet invested in rail a decade or so ago.

JohnFen 4y ago

It is a sick society that can decide that some people can be sacrificed just to make things a bit cheaper.

efficax 4y ago

the rail companies could avoid a strike by agreeing on the sick leave terms and hiring more workers to add slack to the system. why aren’t they to blame? this is a system where people are dying on the job because they can’t take time to see a doctor. where they can’t help out if their family is sick. how this lasted through covid is beyond my imagination,

tomrod 4y ago

> This type of loss would most certainly have a permanent effect on prices. Given how bad inflation is currently, this would further drive inflation higher. This complicates the decision to strike when people are already having trouble affording basic necessities as it is. Sure would. Sounds like the railroad should give sick days or be nationalized.