4 ms·

Is that true? My understanding is they command very high wages because their unions are strong and they have a lot of leverage: by striking they can impose ext

by RobinL 11mo ago

Is that true? My understanding is they command very high wages because their unions are strong and they have a lot of leverage: by striking they can impose extremely high costs on the wider economy (not to mention bad press for politicians).

thesuitonym 11mo ago
These two things are related.
cedilla 11mo ago
Labour shortages makes finding scabs hard.
fergie 11mo ago
Yes. This was literally a case study for my Sociology degree in the '90s. (I would also mindfully say that there is a lot of subtle political propaganda in the UK around this issue- the powers that be want the public to blame train drivers for the failures of privatisation)
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  That doesn't convince me. Companies commonly handle situations like this just fine. I know because I have seen it. I think you are the one who fell for the propaganda here.
  - fergie 11mo ago
    Your informative, water-tight argument has convinced me.
    - qcnguy 11mo ago
      But you haven't made an argument, so you're in no position to criticize. You asserted that "train drivers became rarer due to shareholder reluctance to train and recruit them" and then didn't back this strange claim up, just said "I'm right" in different words. A sociology degree isn't convincing btw.
  - toyg 11mo ago
    > I know because I have seen it Companies may or may not handle strikes properly. If it were that easy, industrial interests (and their emissaries, like Reagan and Thatcher) would not have spent more than a century trying to break unions.
    - terminalshort 11mo ago
      You missed the context. I am agreeing with you. This is the argument I'm responding to: > train drivers became rarer due to shareholder reluctance to train and recruit them
Workaccount2 11mo ago
Our ports in the US, which affects the cost of endless goods, are still running with 1950's level tech because the unions are so strong (and have heavy mob ties).
- dh2022 11mo ago
  What is stopping other ports in the US from adopting 2025 tech and growing to the point where existing ports have to get new tech or become obsolete?
  - Workaccount2 11mo ago
    The mob part.
    - thaumasiotes 11mo ago
      The mob used to be a major issue in American politics. Today it isn't. Are you arguing that it's grown more powerful with that change?
      - Workaccount2 11mo ago
        I'm arguing that if you are someone who tries to bring change to the ports, like the developer contracted by the government to do an assessment, you will get a visit, most likely at your home. They won't kill you or rough you up, but they will tell you what your assessment will find. And reiterate that they are at your house, where your family lives.
  - renewiltord 11mo ago
    You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been.
    - thaumasiotes 11mo ago
      > You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been. In that case, there's no obstacle. This is exactly what happened with containerization, and guess what? The ports that did containerize, including some ports constructed from scratch specifically because existing unionized ports blocked containerization, replaced the ports that didn't.
phatfish 11mo ago
I want someone who cares to be driving the train I'm on. They also require in person participation which make outsourcing hard. I'm fine with self driving when the line is designed for it. It will be a very long time before existing lines are self driving, and its not because on unions. Not really sure why people like moaning about train drivers. Are they jealous a train driver is making more than them? While in the case of tech workers they sit quietly and watch their £65k jobs go to India.
BurningFrog 11mo ago
Unions that can shut down important parts of society can and do get paid about as much as they want. This is much more like blackmail than doing right by the working man. Did the train drivers somehow not have this power before privatization?
insane_dreamer 11mo ago
If that's the case, then it would be the case whether the railways are privatized or not (making the case for nationalization vs privatization).

by RobinL 11mo ago

thesuitonym 11mo ago

These two things are related.

cedilla 11mo ago

Labour shortages makes finding scabs hard.

fergie 11mo ago

Yes. This was literally a case study for my Sociology degree in the '90s. (I would also mindfully say that there is a lot of subtle political propaganda in the UK around this issue- the powers that be want the public to blame train drivers for the failures of privatisation)

terminalshort 11mo ago
That doesn't convince me. Companies commonly handle situations like this just fine. I know because I have seen it. I think you are the one who fell for the propaganda here.
- fergie 11mo ago
  Your informative, water-tight argument has convinced me.
  - qcnguy 11mo ago
    But you haven't made an argument, so you're in no position to criticize. You asserted that "train drivers became rarer due to shareholder reluctance to train and recruit them" and then didn't back this strange claim up, just said "I'm right" in different words. A sociology degree isn't convincing btw.
- toyg 11mo ago
  > I know because I have seen it Companies may or may not handle strikes properly. If it were that easy, industrial interests (and their emissaries, like Reagan and Thatcher) would not have spent more than a century trying to break unions.
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    You missed the context. I am agreeing with you. This is the argument I'm responding to: > train drivers became rarer due to shareholder reluctance to train and recruit them

Workaccount2 11mo ago

Our ports in the US, which affects the cost of endless goods, are still running with 1950's level tech because the unions are so strong (and have heavy mob ties).

dh2022 11mo ago
What is stopping other ports in the US from adopting 2025 tech and growing to the point where existing ports have to get new tech or become obsolete?
- Workaccount2 11mo ago
  The mob part.
  - thaumasiotes 11mo ago
    The mob used to be a major issue in American politics. Today it isn't. Are you arguing that it's grown more powerful with that change?
    - Workaccount2 11mo ago
      I'm arguing that if you are someone who tries to bring change to the ports, like the developer contracted by the government to do an assessment, you will get a visit, most likely at your home. They won't kill you or rough you up, but they will tell you what your assessment will find. And reiterate that they are at your house, where your family lives.
- renewiltord 11mo ago
  You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been.
  - thaumasiotes 11mo ago
    > You try it, you get a visit. Same way it's always been. In that case, there's no obstacle. This is exactly what happened with containerization, and guess what? The ports that did containerize, including some ports constructed from scratch specifically because existing unionized ports blocked containerization, replaced the ports that didn't.

phatfish 11mo ago

I want someone who cares to be driving the train I'm on. They also require in person participation which make outsourcing hard. I'm fine with self driving when the line is designed for it. It will be a very long time before existing lines are self driving, and its not because on unions. Not really sure why people like moaning about train drivers. Are they jealous a train driver is making more than them? While in the case of tech workers they sit quietly and watch their £65k jobs go to India.

BurningFrog 11mo ago

Unions that can shut down important parts of society can and do get paid about as much as they want. This is much more like blackmail than doing right by the working man. Did the train drivers somehow not have this power before privatization?

insane_dreamer 11mo ago

If that's the case, then it would be the case whether the railways are privatized or not (making the case for nationalization vs privatization).