5 ms·

This is why you need UBI, universal healthcare, etc. If a worker could say "FUCK YOU" and walk off the job at a moment's notice without risking their family, th

by ok_dad 4y ago

This is why you need UBI, universal healthcare, etc. If a worker could say "FUCK YOU" and walk off the job at a moment's notice without risking their family, then safety concerns like this become a non-issue because, IMO, most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this, and even if half your staff is willing to take a payment to kill other people with derailment risks, the other half will happily report them. Edit: My assumption here, which I think is reasonable, is that you cannot solve this problem by laws alone, because (as evidenced by this article) companies and management do not care about that. All replies saying we need more laws might also be a part of the solution, but is not the whole thing.

gxt 4y ago
No. Ignoring problems is not a solution.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- enumjorge 4y ago
  I read this less as ignoring a problem, and more like empowering people at lower levels of an organization to do the right thing, a check-and-balances of sorts.
  - gxt 4y ago
    Walking out is not the right thing, and it is not empowerment. It is utter disregard for those who remain, it robs them of your expertise and care. US has OSHA, USCSB, municipal ad., state ad., and federal ad. AND multiple members of Congress per state. Before walking out there all these people AND MORE to contact, make aware, request help from.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      The freedom to walk is the freedom from retribution, which is what gives the employee the ability to refuse orders, blow the whistle, and get fired if they have to. Fear of losing a job is a powerful tool for employers to use in order to force employees to do things that go against their sense of ethics and morality.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      It's about having the option. Mutual assured destruction.
lambdasquirrel 4y ago
I don't know, I think we should consider the other half of the problem. Do you think, if workers were promoted (or given authority) on the basis of a job well done, that this would happen? Right now, in nearly all industries, and even in parts of tech, you become a manager, by being manager-like. That means playing politics and going to business school. Deeper understanding or appreciation of the job isn't really necessary. All that's necessary is the ability to "manage" people, which is of course an important skill, but there's this idea that you can helicopter "leaders" in who don't really need to know the job at hand. It breeds contempt for the folks actually doing the work, and their concerns about the job and their craft.
amelius 4y ago
The problem is that at some point you become reliant on a certain level of income. And it would be kinda strange if working nightshifts on rail work would pay the same as UBI.
- danaris 4y ago
  You don't need it to do so indefinitely. You only need it to pay enough to keep you afloat while you either find another job, or get the previous job to relent, take you back, and agree with you—or downsize your lifestyle. This is, however, why UBI needs to be high enough to actually cover all the basic necessities of life, and not just be something like $500/month.
  - junofan 4y ago
    How long do you think it takes to find a job as a railroad track laborer?
  - notch898a 4y ago
    Exactly, pay enough so that no one has to work. Then we can all buy the goods and services we like without toiling.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >This is, however, why UBI needs to be high enough to actually cover all the basic necessities of life, and not just be something like $500/month $500/month seems pretty doable if you're only eating rice and beans and live in dorm room style accommodations in south dakota, and don't spend money on anything else. Sure, eating rice and beans isn't great, but eating beef is arguably not a necessity. Nor is living in your own unit in a desirable location, or having money for entertainment.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      Or just move to "South Dakota" which is really the Philippines where you get a maid to watch any kid(s), a woman of whatever sort of arrangement you desire, your own flat in a rural but peaceful village, and 3 squares a day. I'd live it up off $500 with no responsibilities, sounds like paradise.
Arrath 4y ago
While I agree, if seems to me that the proper remediation for this situation would be robust whistleblower protections and swift retribution from authorities when a worker says "FUCK THAT" after being told to waive safety inspections or ignore issues and run a train anyway. Including hefty fines against the companies and criminal penalties against not only the managers pushing such approaches, but the executives complicit in it as well.
- Spartan-S63 4y ago
  What if whistleblower protections require the accused company – if the complaint has merit – put in escrow enough money to pay the employee's current salary tacked to inflation or CoL until they reach Social Security retirement age? It would ensure that a legitimate whistleblower would continue to collect a paycheck if they find themselves blacklisted by similar companies.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    Gotta say, I don't hate this idea.
  - whamlastxmas 4y ago
    I mean the lack of escrow isn't the bigger problem here - governments take assets (e.g. taxes) all the time with the threat of literally murdering you if you try to stop them. They will get their money from the company one way or another. The problem is actual accountability and real actions.
    - ledauphin 4y ago
      yes and no. companies find ways to weasel out of laws 5 years down the road all the time. the money would need to be put in escrow at the time of the whistle being blown, or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach.
      - justinclift 4y ago
jiveturkey 4y ago
> most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this not in my experience working in blue collar labor, union or not. also, a bad assumption in general. this is not a good argument for "UBI, nationalized healthcare, etc" laws/regulation with teeth (punitive fines) are the solution here.
gruez 4y ago
> This is why you need UBI, universal healthcare, etc. If a worker could say "FUCK YOU" and walk off the job at a moment's notice without risking their family, then safety concerns like this become a non-issue because, IMO, most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this, and even if half your staff is willing to take a payment to kill other people with derailment risks, the other half will happily report them. I don't buy this argument. What your logic seems to be is that if UBI was in place, then if the worker gets blacklisted or whatever, he can still draw upon UBI to not become homeless, but is that really enough? Suppose you have a middle class lifestyle financed by UBI plus your rail worker job, and you saw something shady happening. Would you really risk getting blacklisted from the industry and thereby downgrading your lifestyle to subsistence level, just so you can blow the whistle?
- autoexec 4y ago
  If people have UBI to cover their most basic needs they could actually have savings and they could use that to maintain their standard of living while they find other work. These rail workers are not highly skilled positions. The article states that they get no formal training at all. Even if no railroad company in the country will hire someone as retaliation quitting (which is a big assumption) they could easily work in some other industry.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    Railroad workers do get a lot of on the job training though. Or at least used to, wouldn't surprise me if they cut back on. But most rail road jobs are highly skilled jobs, the problem is, those skills don't really transfer well. Kind of like a joke I used to hear Marines make when I was in the Navy. The marines just prepare you to be homeless, because a lot of jobs in the Marine Corp don't really transfer out well (unless your aviation side). Which is where UBI will really help, not just with railroad workers, but workers in general. Need to change industry for X reason? Well you have UBI to assist so you don't eat shit in doing so.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >If people have UBI to cover their most basic needs they could actually have savings and they could use that to maintain their standard of living while they find other work. This assumes that people will plow their UBI into savings, which is a doubtful assumption given how we see very well paid professionals live paycheck to paycheck due to lifestyle inflation.
akomtu 4y ago
UBI is a utopia where the powerful state serves the people, while simultaneously keeping other states in check. Same for healthcare: it's not the greedy employers who support this, it's the state itself, its ruthless need to subdue and control anything within its reach.
exabrial 4y ago
Yeah buddy that’s quite the stretch. First, there’s this thing called banks. You can put money into them and save it for later, so you don’t have to depend on a political party handing stuff out. But sure, not everyone likes to save, that’s their freedom and their choice. Well guess what, they’re part of a rail union, they can already walk off the job.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  Could you please be a tad less vitriolic? All this comment makes clear is that there’s absolutely zero point engaging with you because anyone that does is going to become your new outlet for…whatever this is…which is somehow justified by your feelings about UBI? We’re all adults. Act like it.
- cafard 4y ago
  Actually, no they can't already walk off the job. You may remember that the president essentially imposed a settlement some months ago.
GoToRO 4y ago
Social safety nets also help with technology. Let's say ChatGPT makes a lot of money and puts a lot of people out of work. Normally the government should tax it and provide safety nets for those workers. Otherwise you have social distress and that's not good for anybody. Technology progress worries me the most because now it has the potential to spread very fast and people simply do not have time to adapt.
barbazoo 4y ago
Other avenues I suppose would be raising wages so people don't live paycheck to paycheck and decoupling healtcare from employment. But it all leads to the same thing, not having the world end when you suddenly find yourself without a job.

by ok_dad 4y ago

gxt 4y ago

No. Ignoring problems is not a solution.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
enumjorge 4y ago
I read this less as ignoring a problem, and more like empowering people at lower levels of an organization to do the right thing, a check-and-balances of sorts.
- gxt 4y ago
  Walking out is not the right thing, and it is not empowerment. It is utter disregard for those who remain, it robs them of your expertise and care. US has OSHA, USCSB, municipal ad., state ad., and federal ad. AND multiple members of Congress per state. Before walking out there all these people AND MORE to contact, make aware, request help from.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    The freedom to walk is the freedom from retribution, which is what gives the employee the ability to refuse orders, blow the whistle, and get fired if they have to. Fear of losing a job is a powerful tool for employers to use in order to force employees to do things that go against their sense of ethics and morality.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    It's about having the option. Mutual assured destruction.

lambdasquirrel 4y ago

I don't know, I think we should consider the other half of the problem. Do you think, if workers were promoted (or given authority) on the basis of a job well done, that this would happen? Right now, in nearly all industries, and even in parts of tech, you become a manager, by being manager-like. That means playing politics and going to business school. Deeper understanding or appreciation of the job isn't really necessary. All that's necessary is the ability to "manage" people, which is of course an important skill, but there's this idea that you can helicopter "leaders" in who don't really need to know the job at hand. It breeds contempt for the folks actually doing the work, and their concerns about the job and their craft.

amelius 4y ago

The problem is that at some point you become reliant on a certain level of income. And it would be kinda strange if working nightshifts on rail work would pay the same as UBI.

danaris 4y ago
You don't need it to do so indefinitely. You only need it to pay enough to keep you afloat while you either find another job, or get the previous job to relent, take you back, and agree with you—or downsize your lifestyle. This is, however, why UBI needs to be high enough to actually cover all the basic necessities of life, and not just be something like $500/month.
- junofan 4y ago
  How long do you think it takes to find a job as a railroad track laborer?
- notch898a 4y ago
  Exactly, pay enough so that no one has to work. Then we can all buy the goods and services we like without toiling.
- gruez 4y ago
  >This is, however, why UBI needs to be high enough to actually cover all the basic necessities of life, and not just be something like $500/month $500/month seems pretty doable if you're only eating rice and beans and live in dorm room style accommodations in south dakota, and don't spend money on anything else. Sure, eating rice and beans isn't great, but eating beef is arguably not a necessity. Nor is living in your own unit in a desirable location, or having money for entertainment.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    Or just move to "South Dakota" which is really the Philippines where you get a maid to watch any kid(s), a woman of whatever sort of arrangement you desire, your own flat in a rural but peaceful village, and 3 squares a day. I'd live it up off $500 with no responsibilities, sounds like paradise.

Arrath 4y ago

While I agree, if seems to me that the proper remediation for this situation would be robust whistleblower protections and swift retribution from authorities when a worker says "FUCK THAT" after being told to waive safety inspections or ignore issues and run a train anyway. Including hefty fines against the companies and criminal penalties against not only the managers pushing such approaches, but the executives complicit in it as well.

Spartan-S63 4y ago
What if whistleblower protections require the accused company – if the complaint has merit – put in escrow enough money to pay the employee's current salary tacked to inflation or CoL until they reach Social Security retirement age? It would ensure that a legitimate whistleblower would continue to collect a paycheck if they find themselves blacklisted by similar companies.
- Arrath 4y ago
  Gotta say, I don't hate this idea.
- whamlastxmas 4y ago
  I mean the lack of escrow isn't the bigger problem here - governments take assets (e.g. taxes) all the time with the threat of literally murdering you if you try to stop them. They will get their money from the company one way or another. The problem is actual accountability and real actions.
  - ledauphin 4y ago
    yes and no. companies find ways to weasel out of laws 5 years down the road all the time. the money would need to be put in escrow at the time of the whistle being blown, or the worker would risk bankruptcy or other legal shenanigans putting it beyond their reach.
    - justinclift 4y ago

jiveturkey 4y ago

> most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this not in my experience working in blue collar labor, union or not. also, a bad assumption in general. this is not a good argument for "UBI, nationalized healthcare, etc" laws/regulation with teeth (punitive fines) are the solution here.

gruez 4y ago

> This is why you need UBI, universal healthcare, etc. If a worker could say "FUCK YOU" and walk off the job at a moment's notice without risking their family, then safety concerns like this become a non-issue because, IMO, most people want to do the right thing when in comes to safety like this, and even if half your staff is willing to take a payment to kill other people with derailment risks, the other half will happily report them. I don't buy this argument. What your logic seems to be is that if UBI was in place, then if the worker gets blacklisted or whatever, he can still draw upon UBI to not become homeless, but is that really enough? Suppose you have a middle class lifestyle financed by UBI plus your rail worker job, and you saw something shady happening. Would you really risk getting blacklisted from the industry and thereby downgrading your lifestyle to subsistence level, just so you can blow the whistle?

autoexec 4y ago
If people have UBI to cover their most basic needs they could actually have savings and they could use that to maintain their standard of living while they find other work. These rail workers are not highly skilled positions. The article states that they get no formal training at all. Even if no railroad company in the country will hire someone as retaliation quitting (which is a big assumption) they could easily work in some other industry.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  Railroad workers do get a lot of on the job training though. Or at least used to, wouldn't surprise me if they cut back on. But most rail road jobs are highly skilled jobs, the problem is, those skills don't really transfer well. Kind of like a joke I used to hear Marines make when I was in the Navy. The marines just prepare you to be homeless, because a lot of jobs in the Marine Corp don't really transfer out well (unless your aviation side). Which is where UBI will really help, not just with railroad workers, but workers in general. Need to change industry for X reason? Well you have UBI to assist so you don't eat shit in doing so.
- gruez 4y ago
  >If people have UBI to cover their most basic needs they could actually have savings and they could use that to maintain their standard of living while they find other work. This assumes that people will plow their UBI into savings, which is a doubtful assumption given how we see very well paid professionals live paycheck to paycheck due to lifestyle inflation.

akomtu 4y ago

UBI is a utopia where the powerful state serves the people, while simultaneously keeping other states in check. Same for healthcare: it's not the greedy employers who support this, it's the state itself, its ruthless need to subdue and control anything within its reach.

exabrial 4y ago

Yeah buddy that’s quite the stretch. First, there’s this thing called banks. You can put money into them and save it for later, so you don’t have to depend on a political party handing stuff out. But sure, not everyone likes to save, that’s their freedom and their choice. Well guess what, they’re part of a rail union, they can already walk off the job.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
KyeRussell 4y ago
Could you please be a tad less vitriolic? All this comment makes clear is that there’s absolutely zero point engaging with you because anyone that does is going to become your new outlet for…whatever this is…which is somehow justified by your feelings about UBI? We’re all adults. Act like it.
cafard 4y ago
Actually, no they can't already walk off the job. You may remember that the president essentially imposed a settlement some months ago.

GoToRO 4y ago

Social safety nets also help with technology. Let's say ChatGPT makes a lot of money and puts a lot of people out of work. Normally the government should tax it and provide safety nets for those workers. Otherwise you have social distress and that's not good for anybody. Technology progress worries me the most because now it has the potential to spread very fast and people simply do not have time to adapt.

barbazoo 4y ago

Other avenues I suppose would be raising wages so people don't live paycheck to paycheck and decoupling healtcare from employment. But it all leads to the same thing, not having the world end when you suddenly find yourself without a job.