Name a Right Wing Position

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

You frame it as the republicans fault though and that's BS. That's what I dispute 

 

 

Working people need to rise up, you are literally sticking up for the elites, and then twisting it to "republicans bad" 

 

"Oh give them a few sick days, that'll shut them up"

 

They need a new contract 

I blamed the GOP for exactly one thing: voting against paid sick days. 
 

Most of the people who voted for this acknowledged that they didn’t want to do so but the cost to the economy would be too great not to act. 
 

So they put on their big kid boots and did the dirty thing to save taxpayers money and prevent economic disruption. 
 

Of course, some keyboard warriors would prefer chaos that would cost taxpayers billions in the quixotic hope that it would magically get the workers what they want. 

[TSOL]

Unions used to be strong, their downfall was they were primarily Democrats 

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I blamed the GOP for exactly one thing: voting against paid sick days. 
 

Most of the people who voted for this acknowledged that they didn’t want to do so but the cost to the economy would be too great not to act. 
 

So they put on their big kid boots and did the dirty thing to save taxpayers money and prevent economic disruption. 
 

Of course, some keyboard warriors would prefer chaos that would cost taxpayers billions in the quixotic hope that it would magically get the workers what they want. 

 

So now blue collar union workers striking to get a better contract is a "quixotic hope that it would magically get the workers what they want."?  How long has this been true?

 

You might be right about the economic impact of a strike.  But the one that would lose the most money would be the railroads which is kind of the point.

 

It just seems hypocritical to this guy on the internet that President Biden, a life long supporter of unions, is siding with big bidness to force not having a strike cuz its inconvenient and could hurt his reelection chances.  

Edited December 1, 2022 by reddogblitz

[ChiGoose]

5 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

So now blue collar union workers striking to get a better contract is a "quixotic hope that it would magically get the workers what they want."?  How long has this been true?

 

You might be right about the economic impact of a strike.  But the one that would lose the most money would be the railroads which is kind of the point.

 

It just seems hypocritical to this guy on the internet that President Biden, a life long supporter of unions, is siding with big bidness to force not having a strike cuz its inconvenient and could hurt his reelection chances.  

 

I'm being very specific about the railroad workers here. You local Starbucks workers striking for a union, or factory workers striking for better conditions are good. I support that. Unions, while they have problems, are great for working Americans and help protect them against the power of big business. 

 

I don't want to get into generalities around unions, I support them and I support workers banding together to take power from the C-suite. I wanted to talk very specifically about the current railroad labor dispute.

 

In the real world, the options at this point are:

1. Let the workers strike. In doing so, you will cost the US economy $2 billion per day, spike inflation even higher, severely disrupt commuting in our biggest economic sectors, prevent food products from moving from farms and factories into local groceries, among other effects. This would be done in the hope that the unions would be able to do something they have not yet been able to do.
2. Intervene and codify the agreement that 75% of the unions agreed to. Potentially add on the 7 paid sick days that the remaining 25% of unions were holding out for. Upset your relations with the labor unions, but prevent the severe negative consequences while giving the unions most of what they asked for.

I don't think either option is particularly good. But I think Option 2 is clearly better for the country than Option 1. Long term, I would prefer better protections for all workers. It's insane that we are the only wealthy country without paid sick leave or parental leave. I think Congress should push for those reforms to benefit all workers. But in this immediate conflict, existing in the real world, the options are between bad and catastrophic. It's dirty and unpleasant, but it's reality and the responsibility of being the adult in the room to do the right thing even if you don't love it.

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'm being very specific about the railroad workers here. You local Starbucks workers striking for a union, or factory workers striking for better conditions are good. I support that. Unions, while they have problems, are great for working Americans and help protect them against the power of big business. 

 

I don't want to get into generalities around unions, I support them and I support workers banding together to take power from the C-suite. I wanted to talk very specifically about the current railroad labor dispute.

 

In the real world, the options at this point are:

1. Let the workers strike. In doing so, you will cost the US economy $2 billion per day, spike inflation even higher, severely disrupt commuting in our biggest economic sectors, prevent food products from moving from farms and factories into local groceries, among other effects. This would be done in the hope that the unions would be able to do something they have not yet been able to do.
2. Intervene and codify the agreement that 75% of the unions agreed to. Potentially add on the 7 paid sick days that the remaining 25% of unions were holding out for. Upset your relations with the labor unions, but prevent the severe negative consequences while giving the unions most of what they asked for.

I don't think either option is particularly good. But I think Option 2 is clearly better for the country than Option 1. Long term, I would prefer better protections for all workers. It's insane that we are the only wealthy country without paid sick leave or parental leave. I think Congress should push for those reforms to benefit all workers. But in this immediate conflict, existing in the real world, the options are between bad and catastrophic. It's dirty and unpleasant, but it's reality and the responsibility of being the adult in the room to do the right thing even if you don't love it.

Goose….I’m curious, but do you have any statistics on the percentage of full time working Americans who don’t get paid sick leave? I know I’ve never worked a full time job that didn’t offer it. I have to think it’s a very small percentage. 

[ALF]

Railroad workers aren’t the only Americans without paid sick days

The House passed the tentative rail agreement on Wednesday, with 79 Republicans and most Democrats supporting it. Lawmakers also voted separately to add a provision that would give the workers seven paid sick days, which was backed by nearly all Democrats but only three Republicans.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/01/success/railroad-workers-sick-days/index.html

[ChiGoose]

31 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose….I’m curious, but do you have any statistics on the percentage of full time working Americans who don’t get paid sick leave? I know I’ve never worked a full time job that didn’t offer it. I have to think it’s a very small percentage. 

 

22% of American workers do not have access to paid sick leave. 14% of full time employees do not have access to paid sick leave.

 

Something else to keep in mind is how sick leave is accumulated when changing jobs. In an employee-friendly economy, employees can easily leave one job for a better one. Here, the lack of PTO requirements causes friction that can (and does) lead to people not taking a better opportunity or risking starting a new business due to lack of insurance or other benefits should they leave their current employer. 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

22% of American workers do not have access to paid sick leave. 14% of full time employees do not have access to paid sick leave.

 

Something else to keep in mind is how sick leave is accumulated when changing jobs. In an employee-friendly economy, employees can easily leave one job for a better one. Here, the lack of PTO requirements causes friction that can (and does) lead to people not taking a better opportunity or risking starting a new business due to lack of insurance or other benefits should they leave their current employer. 

 

 

That figures seems rather high to me. Those are FULL TIME employees? Are they hourly? Or salaried?

 

Now with regards to the portability of sick leave, as an employer I disagree with your position. That sick leave wasn’t accrued/earned while working at my company. But just to show you that I’m not a slave driver, we allow sick leave and vacation to be accrued virtually indefinitely. Unused vacation time you are compensated for upon exit but not sick time. 

[ChiGoose]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That figures seems rather high to me. Those are FULL TIME employees? Are they hourly? Or salaried?

 

Now with regards to the portability of sick leave, as an employer I disagree with your position. That sick leave wasn’t accrued/earned while working at my company. But just to show you that I’m not a slave driver, we allow sick leave and vacation to be accrued virtually indefinitely. Unused vacation time you are compensated for upon exit but not sick time. 

14% of full-time employees do not have paid sick leave. As far as I can tell, it does not breakdown between hourly and salaries. Though I would argue that’s irrelevant anyway. 
 

And I’m glad that you have generous benefits. My argument is that it would be beneficial to all of us if all American workers had some baseline of paid sick time. 
 

Also, if anyone is looking for details on the railway dispute, I found this explainer to be incredibly helpful:

 

Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, ChiGoose said:

14% of full-time employees do not have paid sick leave. As far as I can tell, it does not breakdown between hourly and salaries. Though I would argue that’s irrelevant anyway. 
 

And I’m glad that you have generous benefits. My argument is that it would be beneficial to all of us if all American workers had some baseline of paid sick time. 
 

Also, if anyone is looking for details on the railway dispute, I found this explainer to be incredibly helpful:

 

Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

It’s an interesting discussion point for sure. For many years, benefits were considered something that drew employees to work for certain companies. I know it’s true of my company. (If I’m correct, that’s why we have employer provided health care.) If you take away that competition you’re bound to end up with way more turnover of employees, which is obviously not good for business. While your intentions are noble I prefer the current free market approach. 

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

Goose….I’m curious, but do you have any statistics on the percentage of full time working Americans who don’t get paid sick leave? I know I’ve never worked a full time job that didn’t offer it. I have to think it’s a very small percentage. 

 

Same goes for maternity/paternity leave.  Once this thing got rolling in the 80s/90s every company I worked for had it or started doing it.  Even the last company I worked for with 200 employees.  Would love to see the statistics on that too if @ChiGoose has any.

[SoCal Deek]

14 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Same goes for maternity/paternity leave.  Once this thing got rolling in the 80s/90s every company I worked for had it or started doing it.  Even the last company I worked for with 200 employees.  Would love to see the statistics on that too if @ChiGoose has any.

It’s one of the reasons why my company has such a high employee retention history. We’re proud of it. Take that away and what am I really offering….better free coffee? 

[Chef Jim]

57 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

14% of full-time employees do not have paid sick leave. As far as I can tell, it does not breakdown between hourly and salaries. Though I would argue that’s irrelevant anyway. 
 

And I’m glad that you have generous benefits. My argument is that it would be beneficial to all of us if all American workers had some baseline of paid sick time. 
 

Also, if anyone is looking for details on the railway dispute, I found this explainer to be incredibly helpful:

 

Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave

 

I wonder how many of the 14% without sick leave are independent contractors.  

[ChiGoose]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Same goes for maternity/paternity leave.  Once this thing got rolling in the 80s/90s every company I worked for had it or started doing it.  Even the last company I worked for with 200 employees.  Would love to see the statistics on that too if @ChiGoose has any.

In March 2021, 23 percent of civilian workers had access to paid family leave and 89 percent had access to unpaid family leave.

 

My company offers paid parental leave but you have to work there for a full year to qualify. My wife’s company does not. We are both salaried professionals. 

[ALF]

Senate rejects proposal to give rail workers seven days of paid sick leave

The proposal to give workers seven days of sick leave, which was championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other liberal lawmakers, failed to pick up enough Republican support to overcome a 60-vote threshold set for adopting the measure and fell in a 52-43 vote.

 

The votes in the Senate and House now give Democrats the ability to blame Republicans for imposing a labor deal on rail workers that includes little flexibility for taking time off work due to illness or doctor visits.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3758436-senate-rejects-proposal-to-give-rail-workers-seven-days-of-paid-sick-leave/

[TSOL]

What are the union leaders doing that they negotiated a contract with one sick day a year.

 

And who the hell in their right senses could blame the Republicans for that. 

 

Unions used to be strong but now they are the same as everything else. 

 

Corrupted 

[SoCal Deek]

29 minutes ago, TSOL said:

What are the union leaders doing that they negotiated a contract with one sick day a year.

 

And who the hell in their right senses could blame the Republicans for that. 

 

Unions used to be strong but now they are the same as everything else. 

 

Corrupted 

It’s all a balancing act. It’s possible that the Union negotiated a pay increase over sick leave that their members may never use. 

[reddogblitz]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'm being very specific about the railroad workers here. You local Starbucks workers striking for a union, or factory workers striking for better conditions are good. I support that. Unions, while they have problems, are great for working Americans and help protect them against the power of big business. 

 

I don't want to get into generalities around unions, I support them and I support workers banding together to take power from the C-suite. I wanted to talk very specifically about the current railroad labor dispute.

 

In the real world, the options at this point are:

1. Let the workers strike. In doing so, you will cost the US economy $2 billion per day, spike inflation even higher, severely disrupt commuting in our biggest economic sectors, prevent food products from moving from farms and factories into local groceries, among other effects. This would be done in the hope that the unions would be able to do something they have not yet been able to do.
2. Intervene and codify the agreement that 75% of the unions agreed to. Potentially add on the 7 paid sick days that the remaining 25% of unions were holding out for. Upset your relations with the labor unions, but prevent the severe negative consequences while giving the unions most of what they asked for.

I don't think either option is particularly good. But I think Option 2 is clearly better for the country than Option 1. Long term, I would prefer better protections for all workers. It's insane that we are the only wealthy country without paid sick leave or parental leave. I think Congress should push for those reforms to benefit all workers. But in this immediate conflict, existing in the real world, the options are between bad and catastrophic. It's dirty and unpleasant, but it's reality and the responsibility of being the adult in the room to do the right thing even if you don't love it.

 

I see. You're for unions and the ability to strike for better compensation except when you aren't.  Its OK for lowly Starbucks and factory workers but not people who are important and have real leverage.

 

Put your big boy pants on and support the strikers if it comes to pass even if its inconvenient.  If it really would cost $2,000,000,000.00 per day (not sure how accurate it is cuz I hear politicians tossing that number around), there would be tremendous pressure on the big bidness railroads to make concessions which is a good thing and kindof the point.

[ChiGoose]

3 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I see. You're for unions and the ability to strike for better compensation except when you aren't.  Its OK for lowly Starbucks and factory workers but not people who are important and have real leverage.

 

Put your big boy pants on and support the strikers if it comes to pass even if its inconvenient.  If it really would cost $2,000,000,000.00 per day (not sure how accurate it is cuz I hear politicians tossing that number around), there would be tremendous pressure on the big bidness railroads to make concessions which is a good thing and kindof the point.

Because I’m not a childish keyboard warrior and so I can think about what would actually happen if they did strike. 
 

Do you think the US public is going to be on their side? Or is the corporatist media going to convince everyone that the workers are greedy and the new record high inflation is all their fault?

 

Because that’s the easiest question in the world. 

[TSOL]

On 11/30/2022 at 8:49 PM, ChiGoose said:

Part of the working class right here:

 

 

 

 

Let's not forget you started this discussion with this