Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shariewayne t1_ivf6b92 wrote

Reply to comment by nsanity27 in U.S. rail union representing 4,900 workers narrowly approves contract by Banemorth

You have to explain to me why the - or 'a' for that matter - government has any say in a contract deal between Unions and an Employer.

When the smallest of the German rail union - with only 40.000 members - crippled Germany for a couple of days, people & politics were upset.. but so what? It is their right (well, it is in Germany)

36

windedsloth t1_ivfajdk wrote

This goes back to the rail workers are declared a national strategic group. Any contracts or strikes they must first go to a presidential workers board.

Railway Labor Act (RLA), passed in 1926, which regulates bargaining in the rail and airline industries. Even though the RLA protects the right to strike in words, politicians in both parties have used the legislation to strip railroad workers of that right in practice, often ramming settlements down the throats of striking workers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Labor_Act

39

nsanity27 t1_ivfb6ah wrote

In 1981 federal air traffic controllers went on strike citing long hours and low pay after rejecting a contract put forth by the FAA, their employers. The President at the time was Reagan who was very much on the side of management and publicly stated that those who were striking were violating their contract and would be terminated. The US federal government was the boss in that situation and could fire at will any employee. About 11,000 people were fired and this set a precedent.

With the current rail strike it’s a little different. The workers are not federal employees but do work in an absolutely essential industry. Thus, any disruptions to the industry would result in a national emergency with food rotting, goods remaining at factories, imports and exports halted, etc. In a national emergency, our government has nearly limitless power (see Bush’s “wartime” presidency and the invasion of Iraq) and the Biden administration is using the inevitable emergency declaration if a strike occurs to step in now and try to mediate a deal. They brokered a deal between management and union leaders that favored the management position and only includes one scheduled day off per MONTH (you get at least 8 from weekends in any other industry) and said that’s the best we can do. Union leadership is forced to bring it to a vote amongst members which is getting rejected as we speak. So, they’re going to strike and it will be a huge test to the Biden presidency with most likely an opposition controlled legislature whether he will follow in Reagan’s footsteps to crush the strike and force people to work under those conditions or come down on management and revoke their federal contracts unless they give in to the workers.

I know this is a long answer and has a lot more background info than you probably though you needed, but it all boils down to our federal gov’t has historically been in favor of business interests and has heavily legislated and governed in that manner for the last 40 years after Reagan and his handling of the PATCO strike.

29

MacDerfus t1_ivgc4wz wrote

Unless the strike literally begins right now, all the votes will have been cast before any effect of the strike is felt.

Also, who's gonna step in if enough rail workers decide to become former rail workers?

6

Edg4rAllanBro t1_ivi4xso wrote

> Also, who's gonna step in if enough rail workers decide to become former rail workers?

This is a really interesting question because there isn't a branch of the military dedicated to railroads like they are with aircraft. Maybe some part of the army corps of the engineer, but I vaguely remember hearing BNSF planned on having its white collar workers drive trains in the event of a strike.

They tried doing this during the John Deere strike and a few ambulances had to be dispatched, so I'm excited to see the results of making an accountant drive a mile long train alone.

2

SnooOranges3546 t1_ivi5qzb wrote

You shouldn't be. It's not the accountant that's going to get hurt. It's whatever town a hazmat train derails in.

3

Edg4rAllanBro t1_iviay6y wrote

Any hazmat trains running during a strike is irresponsible, that's their fault.

2

LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivf83ek wrote

Because laws in America are written to benefit corporations and profits, not the people living in the US. Hell, right now the US Supreme Court is hearing a case that will determine whether or not companies can sue unions and/or individuals for profits lost during a strike.

23

WirelessBCupSupport t1_ivfex2q wrote

Ah yes. The failings of Capitalism. Didn't some madman have a manifesto about this, and mailed explosives at CEOs and professors? Was right about all of it "except" his methods. Should have left that to the people...

−12

LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivffdyd wrote

So how would you respond to your employer systemically denying you and your coworkers something as simple as no paid time off for illnesses? Please explain WITHOUT using the cop out answer of "get a better job".

16

WET318 t1_ivgg7sj wrote

I don't understand how that's a cop out answer. If the company is able to hire people that will put up with what you're not willing to put up with, then you're shit out of luck. The market value dictates everything. Look at the current market for employees. It's crazy how expensive employees are right now. But, that's the current market value of basic labor.

−4

LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivgrbhv wrote

It's a cop out answer because there are multiple instances of rural communities across the country that might only have one or two employers they could go to at any given time, and usually also results in a pay cut. If you live in a town whose sole businesses are factory farming and gas stations, how easy do you think it would be to leave a job paying $12/hr at the farm to go work for $7.25 at the gas station? Not to mention a potential loss of benefits that could come along with that. Additionally, those wages are hardly sustainable for a family, leaving no room for savings to pack up and leave town for better employment opportunities. "Just get a better job" is ten times easier said than done.

4

Edg4rAllanBro t1_iviumdh wrote

Plus them getting a better job means society fucking collapses. Not like you can't get a big mac from mcdonalds, stuff like "coal doesn't make it to power plants" and "food rots because no one's transporting them". A good amount of society is predicated on having these people basically take it on the chin for 3 years.

2

Edg4rAllanBro t1_iviuhnx wrote

The unabomber's manifesto wasn't about capitalism, it was about the development of technology. If you're going to invoke it, at the very least read the summary.

1

WET318 t1_ivf8ogb wrote

I don't see an issue with a company suing a union. If there is a breach of contract between the union and the company by the union, the company should be able to sue.

−23

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivfa19h wrote

You think companies should be able to sue unions and individuals for profits lost from workers going on strike?

20

WET318 t1_ivgfa81 wrote

If they breach the contract, yes. Of course.

−3

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgn377 wrote

But that's already a thing. A contract is legally binding, so there are already ramifications for breaching contracts.

Should companies be able to sue unions or individuals for loss of profits with no breach of contract by the union?

Because that's what's at stake here in the coming SCOTUS hearing.

6

[deleted] t1_ivfb6x0 wrote

[removed]

−18

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivffmtv wrote

The case that the supreme court will hear isn't about breach of contract. It's about profits lost during a strike. Please familiarize yourself with the case first, and then make an opinion because right now you're doing it backwards.

17

[deleted] t1_ivfuqws wrote

[removed]

−7

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivg29h4 wrote

>Which is not the question I asked?

>What I asked is if they breech the contract why not.

Your question is seriously irrelevant...

Once a contract is in place, neither party may deviate from its terms without the other party’s consent, absent extraordinary circumstances.

The case that the Supreme Court will hear has nothing to do with this. It will likely make workers' strikes punishable by immense fines, which make unions weaker/pointless.

So, now you know unions are already not allowed to breach contracts except for extreme circumstances.

>Thanks for the condescending attitude and not explaining your thinking.

Do you believe that companies should be able to sue unions and individuals for profits lost from workers going on strike?

4

[deleted] t1_ivg37dg wrote

[removed]

−1

cheepcheepimasheep t1_ivgk1ps wrote

"I am bleeding, making me the victor." - you

You started with a rhetorical question... that everyone knew the answer to... except you... and one other person.

Somehow... you thought that meant it was a "gotcha" moment...

What do you think the purpose... of a contract is?? It's legally binding. Your question is therefore... irrelevant... rhetorical... and disingenuous.

Stop derailing from the fact that Republicans and the Supreme Court want to destroy unions.

Maybe more caffeine👊

1

Malvania t1_ivfc2j9 wrote

Typically (and I'm not sure if that's the situation here), the contract expires and then the union goes on strike.

14

LittleTXBigAZ t1_ivf98z9 wrote

But if the union's breach of contract occurs because the company breaches their side of the contract, or fails to negotiate on a new contract in good faith, is it still okay to sue?

11

WET318 t1_ivgfh8d wrote

I mean you can still sue. The company would just lose the lawsuit in this case.

0

nsanity27 t1_ivfwqpv wrote

Unions don’t strike over nothing. There’s always some violation of safety or labor regulations which constitutes a breach of contract on the employer side of things. Alternatively, they could fail to reach an agreement on a new contract and thus there is no existing contract that is breached. Either way, to say that the laws need to be favored more heavily on the management side of things is a very hot take

6

MacDerfus t1_ivgc8e8 wrote

There is no contract to breach in a strike

4

WET318 t1_ivgeuo2 wrote

There most certainly can be.

2

MacDerfus t1_ivghxl0 wrote

Not in this case. They wish to sue people for not being rail workers. Something that the entire population of the US will briefly be guilty with if a strike occurs

2