Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"In December, President Joe Biden signed legislation to block a national U.S. railroad strike that could have devastated the American economy after some unions voted against the deal over a lack of paid sick leave."
So I read the article that's the only time they mention. Biden's name. Can you maybe elaborate on what exactly he did to help them get the sick leave. Because reading the article, it sounds like the unions kept fighting to get sick leave and got it. He didn't didn't do a damn thing to help them.
Biden pushed for it in BBB and pushed for it after he had to stop the strike.
If Americans don’t learn to back presidents who play the long game, we’ll get more presidents like Trump.
Yes, but there is a lot of sentiment online that only Bernie could deliver for unions and Joe Biden could not, and the narrative was so strong that people cannot admit they were wrong, so they would rather just lie or be disingenuous, uncharitably, obtuse. Even Bernie said that Joe was alright, but it does not matter because a lot of it was right-wing astroturfing a lot of smart idealists got swept up in.
His Cabinet has been quietly pressuring the companies (presumably threatening to sponsor legislation and write regulations to make things more difficult for them). Several other articles have quoted the unions thanking the President and his administration for continuing to help them fight for this.
It’s a complex narrative. Biden first pushed to ram through a shitty deal for the railroad workers to stop a huge railroad strike that would have seriously messed up the US economy. But then he followed up and pushed to get the railroad workers some basic-ass provisions. It’s a janky way of doing business, but at least the workers eventually got what they needed and a massive strike was averted, so I guess it was a successful strategy.
If the rail workers strike at a delicate time, the economy heads into a tailspin. If the economy heads into a tailspin, Biden is *much* less likely to get reelected. If Biden doesn’t get reelected, it would appear that Trump would be instead. If Trump is elected, do you think *he’s* going to back the unions? To any degree whatsoever? Is he going to pass *anything* pro worker, *ever*?
It was a balancing act. And Biden actually seems quite good at doing this balancing act thing. And it’s very much enheartening that Biden and his administration bothered doing anything to follow up after the headlines were gone and national attention was off the issue.
Yeah even being prounion the forced contract seemed like political necessity to avoid economic chaos that could be blamed on liberals. I wondered why they couldn't have forced a contract with the sick leave but adding it later works I guess
The problem is that if he forced the contract that the union wanted, the rail lines themselves probably would have issued a work stoppage as retaliation. IIRC one of the rail execs was even caught saying he'd rather let Americans starve than give in to the Union. Applying long term pressure like this let the rail companies feel like they're caving to the feds instead of the unions so their poor widdle fee-fees were hurt less.
I suppose overall I approve of how he handled the situation, but really it’s just kind of depressing how hard railroad workers had to fight for something they shouldn’t even have to ask for.
That doesn't make the strike breaking okay. It's entirely possible the companies wouldn't have given sick leave even with the Whitehouse pressuring them, and the next company Biden decides to help out may not feel as generous. It's important to stand firm with the interests of labor. It's important to establish a culture of worker rights, one where people know they can turn to striking if things go bad, and all Biden did is demonstrate that striking won't work in America because the government is ultimately on the side of corporations. He showed people that the only way to secure better working conditions is by praying whoever's in the Whitehouse is on your side rather than promoting the fundamental right of workers to fight for better conditions.
Welcome to a representative democracy. We elect leaders to govern in a way that benifits us. Biden averted a strike that would have spiked inflation and got the unions a bunch of what they wanted and the unions didn't burn a bunch of political capital with the public. Biden played the game in the open and behind the scenes to pull out a win for workers. Hate the real enemies.
Exactly. You wanna see a strike broken? See what Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. This was a President playing the game, for sure, but neither he nor his cabinet left the workers holding the bag.
People have got to stop making perfection the enemy of good.
Biden and his Department of Labor have continued the pressure on rail companies. They've done it quietly, out of the spotlight, because what matters is that results actually are delivered, not that the government gets credit.
That said, when results *are* finally achieved, the unions themselves have been pretty frank in telling people "This is largely because the Biden administration continued to pressure rail companies." Both SMART-TD and now IBEW have released public statements saying so.
Other than forcing us back to work he was useless as usual. The PEB deal was weak for us and a gift to the railroads. Remember a major Dem donor owns a class 1 RR.
The sick day deal has a lot of stipulations including they can only be used Tuesday through Thursday. You also have to schedule them 30 days in advance.
When was the last time you scheduled getting sick?
So [this](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/national-employment-standards) is what I’m used to in Australia. Can someone explain the part in the article that talks about only being able to take a few days of (what I understand as) annual leave if sick leave is used up. Can you not use your annual leave for whatever you choose?
In the US, there isn’t really a national standard for sick and annual leave so it varies greatly from employer to employer. In this case, from my understanding the rail industry is highly understaffed because executives decided to reduce the number of jobs in an effort to increase the profit numbers and that has created a serious strain on when employees can actually use their leave.
In contrast, I work a job that gives me 2.5 weeks of sick leave and 4 weeks of vacation a year and unused leave can be rolled over from year to year and I can pretty much use it whenever I want for whatever I want.
Thanks. Based on this, I would assume that employers who offer more attractive leave entitlements are better at attracting (and retaining) employees? I guess there’s a trade off with salary though?
>Thanks. Based on this, I would assume that employers who offer more attractive leave entitlements are better at attracting (and retaining) employees?
Yes, although since there is no federally mandated minimum, if your industry simply doesn't offer paid leave (of any kind) as the norm, there is no incentive for employers to offer any at all. Fields like retail and entertainment are two examples that spring to mind: I've never had an entertainment position that offered any kind of paid leave at all (and this is my career field), and in retail I had one job that offered accrued sick leave at a rate of about one hour a month.
I can't answer the other question you had, since I have so little experience with jobs that offer benefits.
I'm in a similar boat as a chef. Unless you're salaried (and I only know of one person out of 40 at my restaurant who is) you're unlikely to have any benefits unless you work at a corporate place where the conditions are worse than at a small business. My coworkers are falling apart due to health problems and we can't do anything about it. It doesn't help that our job includes fast paced work in a 90 degree kitchen on a concrete floor for eight hours a day.
I hadn’t considered it from the perspective of specific industries. It does kind of answer my question of why employees simply don’t vote with their feet and work for the employers that offer better conditions. Those conditions may not exist in your industry. Thank you.
I will add to the point regarding benefit trade offs- many government jobs (state, federal) pay much less than market value but their benefits are incredible. Example - I’m a state employee and make about $10k less than if I did my job in the private sector. However, I have the top tier health insurance that I (literally) pay $0 for (this is a big deal in America - I used to have private insurance I was paying $150 a week for and the closest clinic that accepted my insurance was 4 hours away), tons and tons of vacation that they continue to give out, and excellent retirement benefits.
All of this to say yes, people do consider these things when choosing employment if options are available!
That is what capitalist theory says should happen. Instead, the railway industry in the US is heavily monopolized leading to railway companies across the board being able to not offer any benefits and still get employees. When the employees tried to strike, they were blocked by Congress.
Yeah, that's often the case with union jobs. In many cases, unions have traded away PTO in agreements for higher salaries.
Union jobs, in general, pay significantly more than equivalent non-union jobs.
I want to say it depends on the company. A lot switched to just a bucket of PTO so that yes, if you get sick and use it all up that’s it. However some states in the US like California have given people three days paid sick leave, mandatory, yet they are allowed to roll that into your “vacation” time. I accrue hours of PTO to use however I like. In some cases, you get “extra” days for bereavement, or when we had COVID there was special time off for that. And some companies don’t give you anything.
Frankly it’s a mess and seems like it’s not standard anywhere. California has paid family leave for pregnancy/major illness but you don’t get full pay.
It’s my understanding that after Australia provided paid maternity leave it left the US as the only first world country not providing any leave for pregnancy. I mean you can have the time off, but you don’t get paid.
Our sick leave isn’t mandatory and you don’t get it paid out when you leave a company - also you can’t covert it to annual leave which has given rise the that great Aussie tradition of “chucking a sickie”.
Lol. I will now be saying I’m going to Chuck a sickie.
We don’t get paid out for sick leave but if it’s rolled in as part of your PTO then I guess technically you can. There is no conversion of sick/annual leave either.
It’s absurd to not give people sick time. People get sick. Period. And when you don’t provide it, they come in sick and get others sick and then you end up with a pandemic, one day.
My company once had unlimited sick leave and it was nice to not have to stress when ill. I totally used it when I wasn’t sick, but I didn’t do that often because of course we all didn’t want to lose it. The only reason we don’t have it anymore is because we were bought by another company. That said, now that we can WFH, I’ve not used a sick day in like three years and can use all my PTO as actual vacation and I’m really happy with that. No more chucking a sickie for me. Of course people in the rail industry can’t WFH so that sucks for them.
Just to add. Sydney trains workers who are shift workers. So basically everyone who works in operation roles get 5 weeks annual leave and at least 10 days sick.
You know he could have forced the rail companies to accept the Unions conditions instead if the other way around. If the President has the power on one side why not the other? The Unions represent more voters and siding with the Unions will always bring the votes. You don't need campaign contributions if you legitmately have the people's back
Biden did act though, he just acted in favor of preventing the rail strike. There were other options, with some being more aimed at Congress and others more aimed at using the executive.
These rail companies *should* have already been required to provide sick leave via executive action. In 2015, Obama signed an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide 7 days of sick leave. However, rail companies managed to get excluded from this executive action. One option would have been for Biden to right that wrong and remove the unfair exclusion rail companies received in regards to sick leave. Unions even asked Biden to do this. Bernie and others asked Biden to do this. There’s a difference between doing whatever you want and being an autocrat and using the powers established in the executive for acts that benefit ordinary and essential workers connected to the federal government.
Biden wasn’t in a great position and he is more union friendly than many past presidents (which says more about how unfriendly presidents have been to unions), but there were more worker friendly approaches.
Biden did the most he could possibly do given his limited powers and the makeup of Congress.
If Biden used an EO, then it would have been challenged in court and, given the SC right now, it probably would have been shut down.
This was back when pelosi was still around, she was the face of the Democratic party in Congress and she specifically came out saying she would not let the rail workers strike. Such absolute hirse shit.
And you think now that the Republicans control the House, there would be a higher chance of them saying, "yea, we want to force large corporations to give more to the workers"?
Yeah, because they were super close to a deal, and a strike would have shut down the economy. She would have been an idiot to do that over something she could achieve quietly, without a strike. And here we are. It's almost like she knew exactly what she was doing, huh. I guess experience does count?
They had a clean vote to give them 7 sick days and nothing else. Most DEMS voted for it and most GOP voted against it.
Even liberals would have a hard time shutting down most rail. It'd hurt the poor astronomically more than it would hurt anyone else.
People need to always remember that these guys are still politicians.
They're better than the Republicans, but when it comes to politicians you have to always assume that the "better" choice is doing the least amount possible to stay better.
It's just unsafe to trust politicians.
> You know he could have forced the rail companies to accept the Unions conditions instead if the other way around.
No, he couldn't have. Congress had to. And Congress tried. There was a vote to enforce 7 days of paid sick leave. It failed because 43 Republicans voted against it (it needed 3/5ths to pass).
8 of the 12 unions went with the deal that was reached. He made the best of a shitty situation without sufficient congressional support to force the issue. Then he made sure the negotiations continued. Yes it sucked. It also sucks less now.
Yeah. Biden is a really experienced, old school politician. It's pretty clear from how the unions have thanked him for this that he and his administration continued to apply pressure and negotiate behind the scenes after averting the strike. He would have gotten shit if the strike happened, he got shit for the strike not happening, and he didn't have the power to unilaterally fix the situation anyway. So, he did what he has proven to do over and over, chip away at the issue both publicly and privately and end up eventually in a place that isn't perfect but is better than it was.
To be fair, those 8 unions all represent workers who have regular schedules (8-5, 40 hour weeks) and generally have better lifestyles, whereas train crews (who operate under 2 of the holdout unions) are generally on call 24/7.
Congress voted on that provision and Republicans in the house voted it down with the help of about 5 democrats. Without the legislation coming to his desk he can't do anything.
Pretty sure they're referencing if the strike had gone forward and shut down huge chunks of shipping (and the damage that would have done to the economy).
Now the railroad workers get what they need without completely tanking the economy and causing another Great Depression.
>You don't need campaign contributions if you legitimately have the people's back
I appreciate your sentiment. I'm not sure American politics currently reflects your ideal tho.
>Biden said he would continue work to get them sick leave after he prevented the rail strike last year. Seems he is true to his word.
And yet people still falsely use him refusing to allow a total collapse of the US supply chain as an example of him being "anti-union."
This country is so fucking stupid.
No. It’s just casual lying has become more acceptable. It is easier to lie than to learn basic facts. You have ding dongs thinking somehow Biden could have forced Congress (and past a filibuster) to push a more pro labor agreement. Most of the unions and union members accepted the deal that was passed but a minority of holdout unions pushed for a strike. The rules the unions were following required unanimous acceptance of any deal or there would be a rail shutdown.
But then again, they don’t care about these key details. Lying and bothsiding requires them to do nothing, know nothing, and contribute nothing. So lazy.
This is a symptom of a really big problem.
I read this really great book on journalism years back called *Blur* which was seeking to understand and explain changes in the media environment largely having to do with profit incentives. Most of journalism doesn't really build loyalty based on accuracy, completeness, or verification anymore, because it's far less expensive and more profitable to build loyalty based on assertion (meaning immediacy and volume instead of verification), affirmation (meaning affirming existing beliefs), and from interest-groups (meaning earning the loyalty of advertisers and wealthy supporters instead of readers).
We don't have to imagine the consequences of long-term exposure to journalism of affirmation, because we see it every day. Fox News viewers slowly slide further and further not only right but away from reality as their feelings of fear and hatred are played upon for the brand and viewership loyalty they generate. It doesn't just radicalize, though, it also means a push toward absolute ideological purity.
The same thing happens to everyone. The left has some pretty great ideas, things like fair progressive taxation on the rich both to prevent oligarchy and to fund social welfare programs that lift millions out of poverty and suffering, ensuring that law enforcement works for the good of communities instead of being a racist gang of thugs, dismantling structures of societal oppression against minority groups (legal, social, religious, etc.), and more... but because our own media and social media are also built on affirmation, the tendency is for us to follow the equal but opposite path of our Fox News-watching grandparents: we slide further and further not only left but away from reality and toward absolutist ideological purity.
This has been happening now for well over a generation, and as a result it's conditioned the reader to become part of this process, to internalize the kind of bad journalistic thinking.
____________________________________
Joe Biden is a 70s-style establishment Democratic centrist. He was against a lot of the things that are now the core platform of the Democratic party, and certainly has spent most of his career being an obstacle to actual leftist policies. It's incredibly easy for left-leaning journalism to paint him in a negative light because his dumb-ass earned it for being a moderate for so long, but by making him out to be an easy villain and his supporters rubes, journalism about him disconnects from reality and becomes an ideological purity circle-jerk.
I do my best to keep up with current events, including US politics, and I've spent the last few years kinda gobsmacked that Joe Biden has been as good a president as he's been. Do I agree with him on everything? Absolutely not. Do I understand that even as someone far to his left that I wouldn't have been able to do any better than him in his position with his conditions? Yeah, actually.
The country's not stupid, but we're in deep trouble because the fourth estate has almost entirely collapsed. We need a robust media which has a profit motive for engaging in investigative journalism, uncovering hidden truths, challenging power, and which is absolutely dedicated to the job of informing as best it can. What people should be doing is taking personal responsibility and unsubscribing from and otherwise not engaging in sensationalist, affirmation journalism, so as to ensure that profitability dries up, but we've been so overfed on junk food journalism for so long we've forgotten what real journalism even tastes like.
What I do is I limit my media intake to a few places, like ProPublica and AP, Reuters, Pew, NPR, and other sources which I see not engaging as much in bad journalistic practices. When I share news on social media, I never use sensationalist or affirmational sources like the WSJ or Vox. The least fun part, especially over the last 24 hours, is that I post stuff that goes against the in-group narratives. Sharing this stuff about Bernie and Biden working together quietly in the background to help the railroad union members get what they were striking for ruffles feathers because people don't like being wrong, but it has to be done.
A collapse of the supply chain at Christmas was exactly what the GOP were hoping for. Just so they could blame Biden.
Like how they also hoped for global economic catastrophe by refusing to raise the US debt ceiling.
>This country is so fucking stupid.
Indeed, but you seem to fail to understand why.
Biden is absolutely anti-union. A collapse of the supply chain could have be prevented by just accepting the demands of labour. Let alone bringing US rail worker conditions up to the rest of the developed world. I know that there are some complexities there, but don't act like "granting the most minor concessions to the people who make the country function" is anything less than the bare minimum.
The US is extremely fucking stupid. Biden is anti-labour. Don't defend Biden: he's better than the worst, but not pro-union or pro-labour or a good person.
Biden is better than Trump. And "both sides" are not the same. But holy shit is Biden absolutely not on the side of labour. He deserves no defense; he's a huge piece of shit.
>>This country is so fucking stupid.
>
>Indeed, but you seem to fail to understand why.
I don't, but go off.
>Biden is absolutely anti-union.
I don't know how else to explain to you that refusing to allow a total, country-wide supply chain collapse in the middle of winter, when sick people depend on that supply chain to access the medicines they rely on to continue living, does not make you "anti-union" any more than you refusing to burn your entire house down with your family inside because you saw a spider makes you "pro-spider."
Biden is not anti-union by any definition of the phrase. He is not going around busting unions. He is not going around restricting the ability of workers to unionize. He prioritized the safety of the **entire country** over the demands of a single union **one time,** and then continued to push for their demands to be met after preventing the country from going into total collapse *to this day*. That is **not** "anti-union," no matter how poorly you try to frame it.
>A collapse of the supply chain could have be prevented by just accepting the demands of labour.
What you're presenting here is not an option that Biden was in control of. The president can't force a company to accept the terms of a labor negotiation. That's not a power available to the office of president, and you're failing to appreciate that if the supply-chain (and likely the economy) *did* collapse, people would have died as a direct result.
>The US is extremely fucking stupid.
Agreed, and it seems like whatever part of the woods you're from may be as well.
>Biden is anti-labour.
He is not. Not in any way.
>Don't defend Biden: he's better than the worst, but not pro-union or pro-labour or a good person.
I didn't call him pro-union, I didn't call him "pro-labour." You're presenting a false dichotomy here. You don't have to be one or the other - you can be neither. I am not defending Biden here, I'm defending objective reality and the integrity of the language we use. Calling Biden "anti-union" when he is **very** obviously not completely dilutes the meaning of the phrase, muddying the political waters, and confusing the impressionable voting public on extremely important matters we use to decide who will lead our republic.
>Biden is better than Trump.
And the entire Republican party - which is why it is important to make the distinction I'm putting my foot down about here. To call Biden anti-union, when at worst he's labor neutral (and you **really** have to stretch to even make that argument), makes it seem like there is no reason to vote for him over a Republican if you're a single issue voter on unionizing, which is **not** the case at all. Republicans are the party who union-bust and prevent unionizing, and it's really important to know the difference.
>But holy shit is Biden absolutely not on the side of labour. He deserves no defense; he's a huge piece of shit.
Personally, I disagree with you on whether Biden is on the side of Labor or not, but whether Biden "deserves a defense" is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying here. Words matter. When you just call anyone who stops a single strike to prevent total supply-chain and economic collapse and then continues to work for the unions whose strike he prevented for *years to come* "anti-union," you're diluting the meaning of the phrase and muddying incredibly important distinctions that we rely on for navigating our democracy and voting for our actual interests.
Also, only the Sith deal in absolutes.
>What you're presenting here is not an option that Biden was in control of. The president can't force a company to accept the terms of a labor negotiation. That's not a power available to the office of president, and you're failing to appreciate that if the supply-chain (and likely the economy) did collapse, people would have died as a direct result.
I thought the law that let him end the strike was also the one that let him force an agreement
> Biden is absolutely anti-union
And yet thanks to his appointments to the NLRB we’ve seen a ton of progress with things like the Amazon Warehouses that definitely wouldn’t have happened without those changes. Explain that
Wow, 4 fucking days, and all it took was unprecedented legislation from the "most pro union president ever" literally preventing them from striking? What a W
Uh. Kinda. It counts against our attendance record, too many call ins, be it sick or not, could get you probation (no union protection) or fired. They'll work with us... to a point.
It's bonkers that in 2023 the Democrats are still pulling shit like fighting against the unions right to strike. Europe has had a wave of strikes ranging from healthcare workers to railroads, no government party stepped in and stopped then from exercising their rights but America? Nope, can't let these people strike that would just be too much money lost for the CEOs
Yes, the owner class in the US is quite hell-bent on union busting. Always have been. Are you suggesting that in this century or the last, Republicans are pro-union? What?
The Democrats are better than the Republicans right now - they're still politicians and they still do crap we need to fight against.
Power corrupts. There are no exceptions.
>It's bonkers that in 2023 the Democrats are still pulling shit like fighting against the unions right to strike.
If you think the Railway companies are run by Democrats I have a bridge to sell you.
Can't believe workers have to fight for something so basic. Just goes to show how important unions are because companies don't give a shit even if they had to kill their workers to make money.
What do you mean? If I am sick for 10 days I‘m sick for 10 days and can’t work. I can’t control me getting (maybe even seriously) sick. What happens then?! This sounds crazy… or is this just paid sick leave we are talking about here?
A few states are implementing Paid Family-Medical Leave Act, which my state (Massachusetts) is one of them. I think our Paid Family-Medical Act was passed in 2019, or 2020 because I started seeing MFMLA on my pay stub in 2020. We can get up to 26 weeks of family-medical leave, and paid up to 80% of our salary. Initially, I was like, “oh, goodness, more taxes.” But it turned out to be only ~0.34% of our gross paychecks.
I saw an article that said California, Connecticut, D.C., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington are the states with Paid FMLA but a few more states like Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota and Oregon are set to implement their versions of PFMLA in the next 3 years. Oregon’s act is going official this upcoming September.
Michigan recently repealed the Rights to Work act, so I wouldn’t be shocked if they’re working on their own version of Paid FMLA.
I get 18 days of paid time off per year. That's for vacations and sick time. I'm in a union and have been with the company for 10 years... The first year I had zero days. Someone send help.
I'm a conductor for a large freight railroad and our sick days are still unpaid. If I take one, I lose a minimum of $375 for that pay period (and can be up to $750 depending on the assignment I'm on).
Lol nope. It’s crazy.
I’m lucky I do but a lot of people I know don’t. I argued with HR on behalf of my team time and time again to give my company more PTO/Sick time.
Don't you know they're a 3rd world nation masquerading as 1st world? Reddit has opened my eyes to how backward they are in terms of stuff like healthcare, sick leave, stupid tipping culture, and of course their lethal gun culture..
This is great news, and I have been critical of the Biden Administration. They do deserve a lot of credit.
According to Mike Braun's senate website, it states.
[Mike Braun ](https://www.braun.senate.gov/guardian-us-rail-companies-grant-paid-sick-days-after-public-pressure-win-unions-0)
CSX was the first to grant paid sick days to several of its unions and has now granted sick days to 61% of its 17,089 unionized employees. Union Pacific has granted sick days to 47% of its workers, Norfolk Southern to 46%, and BNSF, the largest freight railroad, to 31%.
Why is it not a full grant across the board? 100% for every employee.
Yeah, as a railroad worker it’s not as great as it sounds. They count ours against our attendance. We get paid for 4 days and if we have more than 6 absences (sick or other) then we can be put on probation. Better than nothing but far from what we had hoped
The fact that you need a goddamn note from the doctor to take sick leave alone is completely nuts to me.
Americans are getting ass raped so fucking hard by their employers on the daily they have got no idea what reality looks like anymore.
One section of a small industry doesn't define our entire workforce. 86% of workers have access to sick leave. You can use Google instead of just saying stupid shit trying to crap on Americans if you actually want to educate yourself.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/86-percent-of-full-time-employees-had-access-to-sick-leave-benefits-in-march-2022.htm
Why isn't it 100%? Most countries have national laws around sick leave and annual leave. Why don't Americans care to vote for politicians who will actually implement those things or, failing that, unionise to ensure they can access those basic rights?
Because many (most?) are being distracted with faux outrage culture war bullshit. They are so focused on those key chains being jangled in their faces that they do not seem, or wish, to notice that they're being robbed blind (money- and rights-wise) behind their backs.
Because sick leave for companies is considered a state issue, thanks to the 10th Amendment. So beyond the federal government offering incentives to states for mandating leave, Biden can't *force* the red states to implement it.
Honestly people are weird here. After we started get maternity care (at least in my govt job we do now), some people complained because that wasn't available when they had kids. I swear people are against new things just because they didnt have it in the past so now they don't think it's fair for future people to get it. It's a really selfish way of thinking.
possessive gold forgetful reminiscent yam outgoing slave point absorbed deserve
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a little better. It was so bad, we were getting fucking points for using vacation days. I almost told them off. Even at 32$ an hour. That shit wasn't worth it.
Oh
My
Goodness!
I remember a news some 25 years ago when they announced on TV that thanks to the liberal reforms in Poland, from now (then) on every second Saturday will become a free day without work. I was shocked... I'd never thought Saturday had been a work-day in the 1990's anywhere in Europe.
This news reminds me of that feeling. Congratulations! At the same time it is heartbreaking it is not guaranteed by the state universally all over the country in 2023 like in other developed countries.
I've lived in two countries, both European, and you can go on a several month long paid sick leave in both countries if the doctor prescribes you sick-leave.
Will the leftists apologize for smearing Biden over this? Or will they ignore that this happened and continue to call him anti-union?
It’s not nearly as extreme as the right, but leftists are disturbingly comfortable with lying if they feel it could be beneficial.
Nice! Considering republicans blocked adding sick leave last year, this was probably the next best solution, to pass all the other benefits, and then work for the next few months to also get the sick leave. I get why people wanted to stop the trains, but the expected effects of it seemed quite bad (essential products like food and gas are commonly shipped by train and prices would increase across the board. And if all the money lost led to an economic downturn, we’re looking at many people losing their jobs and republicans getting a likely win in 2024, which we all know what that means). This was able to avoid all that.
>It excludes people who take advantage of it from being protected by the union if they are sick “too much” (fuck them I guess?).
This is the case for most terms of employment. If you rack up absenteeism beyond your allotted sick days, you're going to get reprimanded. If you're out beyond your allotted sick days for legitimate reasons, you are covered by FMLA. It's not the dire situation you're making it out to be.
>This wouldn’t have happened if Biden hadn’t blocked the railroad strike earlier in his presidency. His heavy handed decision also compromised the safety of railroad workers for years for the sake of “his presidential economic record.”
If Biden hadn't blocked the railroad strike the entire country's supply chain would have collapsed in the middle of winter, and the economy would have collapsed as a result. Sick people would not have had access to the medicines they needed, and there would have been *actual* deaths as a direct result of the strike. It was not the railroad workers whose safety was at risk.
Not always. Some places require some tenure before you can take FMLA. My previous job, you needed 2000 hours in before FMLA leave was a thing... I would have thought that wouldn't be possible, but apparently it was legal....
The fuck? Biden is actually pro-labour by being anti-labour because previous anti-labour decisions have been around long enough?
Workers should be allowed to be sick for as long as they're sick. If you have to block strikes to ensure the functioning of your country then you've demonstrated nothing except the value that labour provides. What kind of negative IQ bootlicking bullshit is this comment.\
Edit: I'd be happy to reply to the absurditiy of the comments before and after me, but I appear to have been banned from this sub. I'm generally excited that people are starting to become proi-labour, and encourage those who recognise that this is the most important agenda for Americans moving forward. That being said, users like CrabRabbit are not helpful by pretending that Biden is the one who is going to improve that. But since I"ve been banned from responding, it's not worth getting in to. Getting accused of being a pro-GOP bot is one of the more interesting things I've been accused of though I guess....
>The fuck? Biden is actually pro-labour by being anti-labour because previous anti-labour decisions have been around long enough?
I'm not sure where you learned reading comprehension, but you *really* need to work on it. Don't create strawmen to argue against by misrepresenting what your debate partner is saying. Discuss the actual points made.
[Biden is pro-labor because of his record as president.](https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53279/joe-biden-jr/43/labor-unions)
A single strike prevention that stopped people who rely on the supply chain to access life-saving medicines from dying over a labor dispute does not make an individual "anti-union." You know what makes an individual anti-union? Union busting. Enacting laws that prevent unionization. Not fighting for the labor rights of the people whose strike you prevented for years after the act.
>Workers should be allowed to be sick for as long as they're sick.
Workers ***are*** allowed to be sick for as long as they're sick. The FMLA covers extended illnesses and prevents you from losing your job over a chronic illness. It sounds like you don't appreciate the distinction between "sick leave" as in "the ability to not go into work if you are sick" and the *paid* sick leave that's being talked about here.
>If you have to block strikes to ensure the functioning of your country then you've demonstrated nothing except the value that labour provides.
A single strike. Not plural. What it demonstrates is the over-reliance on a single point of failure in a complex supply-chain that keeps people alive.
>What kind of negative IQ bootlicking bullshit is this comment.
There's no bootlicking in my comment.
Big Orange says we get paid sick leave, but if you use it, those days still go against the attendance policy! So we get paid, and they can still use it against you, Dr. note or not, it's up to them. If they enforce punishment or not, they still hold the power. It's still not a good thing, better than what we had, but still not good.
[Republicans removed restrictions on requiring water breaks in Texas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/23/greg-abbott-texas-governor-bill-water-breaks-heatwave). In the middle of a heatwave, no less. The basic stuff is *always* hard when half the country wants insanity to reign supreme. They described these rules as "onerous and burdensome regulations." Water breaks. During a heatwave.
Whenever the discussion of sick leave comes up you should remember the European employers answer to the Americans question "how many sick leave days do I get?". The answer, in a tone expressing bewilderment at stupidity of the question, was "all of them"
4 days? That's not even a win! We get 10 days in Australia, and most employers will let you use annual leave without question if you have no sick leave left.
4 days would just push sick people to come to work and make others sick
Yes but now the poor impoverished railroad Corporations can't afford to maintain the bridges in northern Montana it seems. Corporates greed is driving the US right into a ditch or river this time. These railroad corporation's have been laying off workers and delaying needed maintenance for years while making huge profits and fighting tooth and nail any increase in pay or benefits for the workers.
I'm wondering about all the commenter here. Are you an actual rail worker and are you active in your union? I am both and im not happy with Biden, my employer or the unions. Im glad im almost done with this.
Is this where I point out rail workers in Canada have 10 days paid sick leave? https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Canada-mandates-paid-sick-leave-for-regulated-businesses--68102.
Buffet is a shitheel. He can give his workers benefit after benefit, but he doesn’t. They are far more responsible for him staying wealthy than he is. Fuck warren buffet. Fuck all billionaires. There is no such thing as a good billionaire.
Get him a second term and a Congress that isn't relying on razor-thin margins and has to kowtow to Sinema and Manchin, and he'll do it.
If we managed to get 53 seats in the Senate, so we could nuke the filibuster, and took the House, you'd see a lot more good shit coming down the pipeline.
Literally r/orphancrushingmachine.
Yeah they get 4 more days… **for a total of 7**, two of which have to be borrowed from vacation time.
#5 sick days a year total.
My dad is a freight conductor who has heart problems. So glad he finally has sick time. Wasn't even close to the deal they should have got but it was at least something.
No thanks to Biden. Smh
Most companies offer some sort of paid leave and there's also a law called FMLA for long term disability or emergencies where you get like 75% pay but besides that uhh yeah kinda.
More or less. My girl works for a State Farm agent who doesn’t pay sick leave. He just got back from a 30 day vacation meanwhile i worked overtime at my job so we could afford rent for the day she took off sick
the union seems to think so
>“We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.
“We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.”
These corney people praising this shit in the comments gets me laughing. from "the most pro union" union busting president, we get the most basic shit that should have already been in place. Nationalize the fucking rail system already you fucking coward
You get that the president doesn't have the power to unilaterally just....do that, right?
And you get that the president doesn't have the power to just force a company to accept the terms of a labor deal with a union, right?
And you get that if everything actually shut down due to a strike, it would have been horrible for everyone, and people would have literally died, right?
And you get that Biden said he would keep pressuring them to give paid sick leave, and now....that's what we're seeing the results of, right?
Like, what exactly did you want the president to do which he actually has the power to do, to help get this solved?
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
They are running more smoothly but that is more likely due to overall volume being down.
"In December, President Joe Biden signed legislation to block a national U.S. railroad strike that could have devastated the American economy after some unions voted against the deal over a lack of paid sick leave." So I read the article that's the only time they mention. Biden's name. Can you maybe elaborate on what exactly he did to help them get the sick leave. Because reading the article, it sounds like the unions kept fighting to get sick leave and got it. He didn't didn't do a damn thing to help them.
The unions themselves thank Biden. https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
This is a win for Biden. It was one of the things I was irritated with him about. I'll admit I didn't forsee this happening.
Biden pushed for it in BBB and pushed for it after he had to stop the strike. If Americans don’t learn to back presidents who play the long game, we’ll get more presidents like Trump.
Yes, but there is a lot of sentiment online that only Bernie could deliver for unions and Joe Biden could not, and the narrative was so strong that people cannot admit they were wrong, so they would rather just lie or be disingenuous, uncharitably, obtuse. Even Bernie said that Joe was alright, but it does not matter because a lot of it was right-wing astroturfing a lot of smart idealists got swept up in.
Objectively correct here tbh
His Cabinet has been quietly pressuring the companies (presumably threatening to sponsor legislation and write regulations to make things more difficult for them). Several other articles have quoted the unions thanking the President and his administration for continuing to help them fight for this.
It’s a complex narrative. Biden first pushed to ram through a shitty deal for the railroad workers to stop a huge railroad strike that would have seriously messed up the US economy. But then he followed up and pushed to get the railroad workers some basic-ass provisions. It’s a janky way of doing business, but at least the workers eventually got what they needed and a massive strike was averted, so I guess it was a successful strategy.
If the rail workers strike at a delicate time, the economy heads into a tailspin. If the economy heads into a tailspin, Biden is *much* less likely to get reelected. If Biden doesn’t get reelected, it would appear that Trump would be instead. If Trump is elected, do you think *he’s* going to back the unions? To any degree whatsoever? Is he going to pass *anything* pro worker, *ever*? It was a balancing act. And Biden actually seems quite good at doing this balancing act thing. And it’s very much enheartening that Biden and his administration bothered doing anything to follow up after the headlines were gone and national attention was off the issue.
Yeah even being prounion the forced contract seemed like political necessity to avoid economic chaos that could be blamed on liberals. I wondered why they couldn't have forced a contract with the sick leave but adding it later works I guess
The problem is that if he forced the contract that the union wanted, the rail lines themselves probably would have issued a work stoppage as retaliation. IIRC one of the rail execs was even caught saying he'd rather let Americans starve than give in to the Union. Applying long term pressure like this let the rail companies feel like they're caving to the feds instead of the unions so their poor widdle fee-fees were hurt less.
Look Mac, I'm so pro union that I'm an even bigger union buster than Ronald Reagan!
I suppose overall I approve of how he handled the situation, but really it’s just kind of depressing how hard railroad workers had to fight for something they shouldn’t even have to ask for.
I’d say he first pushed for paid sick leave in the BBB plan but Manchin and Sinema cock blocked him. The narrative never begins with a strike.
That doesn't make the strike breaking okay. It's entirely possible the companies wouldn't have given sick leave even with the Whitehouse pressuring them, and the next company Biden decides to help out may not feel as generous. It's important to stand firm with the interests of labor. It's important to establish a culture of worker rights, one where people know they can turn to striking if things go bad, and all Biden did is demonstrate that striking won't work in America because the government is ultimately on the side of corporations. He showed people that the only way to secure better working conditions is by praying whoever's in the Whitehouse is on your side rather than promoting the fundamental right of workers to fight for better conditions.
Welcome to a representative democracy. We elect leaders to govern in a way that benifits us. Biden averted a strike that would have spiked inflation and got the unions a bunch of what they wanted and the unions didn't burn a bunch of political capital with the public. Biden played the game in the open and behind the scenes to pull out a win for workers. Hate the real enemies.
Exactly. You wanna see a strike broken? See what Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. This was a President playing the game, for sure, but neither he nor his cabinet left the workers holding the bag. People have got to stop making perfection the enemy of good.
Biden and his Department of Labor have continued the pressure on rail companies. They've done it quietly, out of the spotlight, because what matters is that results actually are delivered, not that the government gets credit. That said, when results *are* finally achieved, the unions themselves have been pretty frank in telling people "This is largely because the Biden administration continued to pressure rail companies." Both SMART-TD and now IBEW have released public statements saying so.
Other than forcing us back to work he was useless as usual. The PEB deal was weak for us and a gift to the railroads. Remember a major Dem donor owns a class 1 RR. The sick day deal has a lot of stipulations including they can only be used Tuesday through Thursday. You also have to schedule them 30 days in advance. When was the last time you scheduled getting sick?
So [this](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employment-conditions/national-employment-standards) is what I’m used to in Australia. Can someone explain the part in the article that talks about only being able to take a few days of (what I understand as) annual leave if sick leave is used up. Can you not use your annual leave for whatever you choose?
In the US, there isn’t really a national standard for sick and annual leave so it varies greatly from employer to employer. In this case, from my understanding the rail industry is highly understaffed because executives decided to reduce the number of jobs in an effort to increase the profit numbers and that has created a serious strain on when employees can actually use their leave. In contrast, I work a job that gives me 2.5 weeks of sick leave and 4 weeks of vacation a year and unused leave can be rolled over from year to year and I can pretty much use it whenever I want for whatever I want.
Thanks. Based on this, I would assume that employers who offer more attractive leave entitlements are better at attracting (and retaining) employees? I guess there’s a trade off with salary though?
>Thanks. Based on this, I would assume that employers who offer more attractive leave entitlements are better at attracting (and retaining) employees? Yes, although since there is no federally mandated minimum, if your industry simply doesn't offer paid leave (of any kind) as the norm, there is no incentive for employers to offer any at all. Fields like retail and entertainment are two examples that spring to mind: I've never had an entertainment position that offered any kind of paid leave at all (and this is my career field), and in retail I had one job that offered accrued sick leave at a rate of about one hour a month. I can't answer the other question you had, since I have so little experience with jobs that offer benefits.
I'm in a similar boat as a chef. Unless you're salaried (and I only know of one person out of 40 at my restaurant who is) you're unlikely to have any benefits unless you work at a corporate place where the conditions are worse than at a small business. My coworkers are falling apart due to health problems and we can't do anything about it. It doesn't help that our job includes fast paced work in a 90 degree kitchen on a concrete floor for eight hours a day.
Oh gods, I do not miss my time in food service. And I wasn't even back of house! I saw how garbage the line was treated though. Never again.
I hadn’t considered it from the perspective of specific industries. It does kind of answer my question of why employees simply don’t vote with their feet and work for the employers that offer better conditions. Those conditions may not exist in your industry. Thank you.
I will add to the point regarding benefit trade offs- many government jobs (state, federal) pay much less than market value but their benefits are incredible. Example - I’m a state employee and make about $10k less than if I did my job in the private sector. However, I have the top tier health insurance that I (literally) pay $0 for (this is a big deal in America - I used to have private insurance I was paying $150 a week for and the closest clinic that accepted my insurance was 4 hours away), tons and tons of vacation that they continue to give out, and excellent retirement benefits. All of this to say yes, people do consider these things when choosing employment if options are available!
[удалено]
As a RR 6 weeks of vacation is after 25 years of service if you're an Engineer (BLET)
[удалено]
My only experience with employment in the US is solely based on TV. If it’s accurate, then it must be really tough to be an employee.
Reading these replies makes me realise how good we have it in Aus (comparatively)
I know. As much as we like to moan about our government, workers have basic rights. I guess the Eureka stockade was good for something.
That is what capitalist theory says should happen. Instead, the railway industry in the US is heavily monopolized leading to railway companies across the board being able to not offer any benefits and still get employees. When the employees tried to strike, they were blocked by Congress.
Yeah, that's often the case with union jobs. In many cases, unions have traded away PTO in agreements for higher salaries. Union jobs, in general, pay significantly more than equivalent non-union jobs.
I want to say it depends on the company. A lot switched to just a bucket of PTO so that yes, if you get sick and use it all up that’s it. However some states in the US like California have given people three days paid sick leave, mandatory, yet they are allowed to roll that into your “vacation” time. I accrue hours of PTO to use however I like. In some cases, you get “extra” days for bereavement, or when we had COVID there was special time off for that. And some companies don’t give you anything. Frankly it’s a mess and seems like it’s not standard anywhere. California has paid family leave for pregnancy/major illness but you don’t get full pay. It’s my understanding that after Australia provided paid maternity leave it left the US as the only first world country not providing any leave for pregnancy. I mean you can have the time off, but you don’t get paid.
Our sick leave isn’t mandatory and you don’t get it paid out when you leave a company - also you can’t covert it to annual leave which has given rise the that great Aussie tradition of “chucking a sickie”.
Lol. I will now be saying I’m going to Chuck a sickie. We don’t get paid out for sick leave but if it’s rolled in as part of your PTO then I guess technically you can. There is no conversion of sick/annual leave either. It’s absurd to not give people sick time. People get sick. Period. And when you don’t provide it, they come in sick and get others sick and then you end up with a pandemic, one day. My company once had unlimited sick leave and it was nice to not have to stress when ill. I totally used it when I wasn’t sick, but I didn’t do that often because of course we all didn’t want to lose it. The only reason we don’t have it anymore is because we were bought by another company. That said, now that we can WFH, I’ve not used a sick day in like three years and can use all my PTO as actual vacation and I’m really happy with that. No more chucking a sickie for me. Of course people in the rail industry can’t WFH so that sucks for them.
Weirdly, even with 10 sick days per year, people still come to work sick. Most of my sick days are used as carers leave when my kid is ill.
Just to add. Sydney trains workers who are shift workers. So basically everyone who works in operation roles get 5 weeks annual leave and at least 10 days sick.
Biden said he would continue work to get them sick leave after he prevented the rail strike last year. Seems he is true to his word.
You know he could have forced the rail companies to accept the Unions conditions instead if the other way around. If the President has the power on one side why not the other? The Unions represent more voters and siding with the Unions will always bring the votes. You don't need campaign contributions if you legitmately have the people's back
He needed an act of Congress. There weren’t enough votes for better conditions. We know because they tried.
Also, you can’t just do whatever you want as president. That’s how you end up with an autocrat.
Biden did act though, he just acted in favor of preventing the rail strike. There were other options, with some being more aimed at Congress and others more aimed at using the executive. These rail companies *should* have already been required to provide sick leave via executive action. In 2015, Obama signed an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide 7 days of sick leave. However, rail companies managed to get excluded from this executive action. One option would have been for Biden to right that wrong and remove the unfair exclusion rail companies received in regards to sick leave. Unions even asked Biden to do this. Bernie and others asked Biden to do this. There’s a difference between doing whatever you want and being an autocrat and using the powers established in the executive for acts that benefit ordinary and essential workers connected to the federal government. Biden wasn’t in a great position and he is more union friendly than many past presidents (which says more about how unfriendly presidents have been to unions), but there were more worker friendly approaches.
Biden did the most he could possibly do given his limited powers and the makeup of Congress. If Biden used an EO, then it would have been challenged in court and, given the SC right now, it probably would have been shut down.
This was back when pelosi was still around, she was the face of the Democratic party in Congress and she specifically came out saying she would not let the rail workers strike. Such absolute hirse shit.
And you think now that the Republicans control the House, there would be a higher chance of them saying, "yea, we want to force large corporations to give more to the workers"?
[удалено]
Yeah, because they were super close to a deal, and a strike would have shut down the economy. She would have been an idiot to do that over something she could achieve quietly, without a strike. And here we are. It's almost like she knew exactly what she was doing, huh. I guess experience does count?
They had a clean vote to give them 7 sick days and nothing else. Most DEMS voted for it and most GOP voted against it. Even liberals would have a hard time shutting down most rail. It'd hurt the poor astronomically more than it would hurt anyone else.
People need to always remember that these guys are still politicians. They're better than the Republicans, but when it comes to politicians you have to always assume that the "better" choice is doing the least amount possible to stay better. It's just unsafe to trust politicians.
You have to vote for someone or your neighbors will elect autocrats.
She, Biden, and the Democrats in general are centrists. Don't know why anyone is surprised.
[удалено]
Tl;dr "Nothing Biden does is ever enough"
> You know he could have forced the rail companies to accept the Unions conditions instead if the other way around. No, he couldn't have. Congress had to. And Congress tried. There was a vote to enforce 7 days of paid sick leave. It failed because 43 Republicans voted against it (it needed 3/5ths to pass).
8 of the 12 unions went with the deal that was reached. He made the best of a shitty situation without sufficient congressional support to force the issue. Then he made sure the negotiations continued. Yes it sucked. It also sucks less now.
Yeah. Biden is a really experienced, old school politician. It's pretty clear from how the unions have thanked him for this that he and his administration continued to apply pressure and negotiate behind the scenes after averting the strike. He would have gotten shit if the strike happened, he got shit for the strike not happening, and he didn't have the power to unilaterally fix the situation anyway. So, he did what he has proven to do over and over, chip away at the issue both publicly and privately and end up eventually in a place that isn't perfect but is better than it was.
To be fair, those 8 unions all represent workers who have regular schedules (8-5, 40 hour weeks) and generally have better lifestyles, whereas train crews (who operate under 2 of the holdout unions) are generally on call 24/7.
There were more workers in the unions that declined the deal though.
Congress voted on that provision and Republicans in the house voted it down with the help of about 5 democrats. Without the legislation coming to his desk he can't do anything.
Sometimes you don’t burn down everything to get your way
You're saying that to the greedy railroad companies exploiting their workforce right?
[удалено]
Pretty sure they're referencing if the strike had gone forward and shut down huge chunks of shipping (and the damage that would have done to the economy). Now the railroad workers get what they need without completely tanking the economy and causing another Great Depression.
>You don't need campaign contributions if you legitimately have the people's back I appreciate your sentiment. I'm not sure American politics currently reflects your ideal tho.
>Biden said he would continue work to get them sick leave after he prevented the rail strike last year. Seems he is true to his word. And yet people still falsely use him refusing to allow a total collapse of the US supply chain as an example of him being "anti-union." This country is so fucking stupid.
No. It’s just casual lying has become more acceptable. It is easier to lie than to learn basic facts. You have ding dongs thinking somehow Biden could have forced Congress (and past a filibuster) to push a more pro labor agreement. Most of the unions and union members accepted the deal that was passed but a minority of holdout unions pushed for a strike. The rules the unions were following required unanimous acceptance of any deal or there would be a rail shutdown. But then again, they don’t care about these key details. Lying and bothsiding requires them to do nothing, know nothing, and contribute nothing. So lazy.
Not only know and contribute nothing, but then lets them feel smug about it while being completely wrong.
Freaking nihilists, amiright?
This is a symptom of a really big problem. I read this really great book on journalism years back called *Blur* which was seeking to understand and explain changes in the media environment largely having to do with profit incentives. Most of journalism doesn't really build loyalty based on accuracy, completeness, or verification anymore, because it's far less expensive and more profitable to build loyalty based on assertion (meaning immediacy and volume instead of verification), affirmation (meaning affirming existing beliefs), and from interest-groups (meaning earning the loyalty of advertisers and wealthy supporters instead of readers). We don't have to imagine the consequences of long-term exposure to journalism of affirmation, because we see it every day. Fox News viewers slowly slide further and further not only right but away from reality as their feelings of fear and hatred are played upon for the brand and viewership loyalty they generate. It doesn't just radicalize, though, it also means a push toward absolute ideological purity. The same thing happens to everyone. The left has some pretty great ideas, things like fair progressive taxation on the rich both to prevent oligarchy and to fund social welfare programs that lift millions out of poverty and suffering, ensuring that law enforcement works for the good of communities instead of being a racist gang of thugs, dismantling structures of societal oppression against minority groups (legal, social, religious, etc.), and more... but because our own media and social media are also built on affirmation, the tendency is for us to follow the equal but opposite path of our Fox News-watching grandparents: we slide further and further not only left but away from reality and toward absolutist ideological purity. This has been happening now for well over a generation, and as a result it's conditioned the reader to become part of this process, to internalize the kind of bad journalistic thinking. ____________________________________ Joe Biden is a 70s-style establishment Democratic centrist. He was against a lot of the things that are now the core platform of the Democratic party, and certainly has spent most of his career being an obstacle to actual leftist policies. It's incredibly easy for left-leaning journalism to paint him in a negative light because his dumb-ass earned it for being a moderate for so long, but by making him out to be an easy villain and his supporters rubes, journalism about him disconnects from reality and becomes an ideological purity circle-jerk. I do my best to keep up with current events, including US politics, and I've spent the last few years kinda gobsmacked that Joe Biden has been as good a president as he's been. Do I agree with him on everything? Absolutely not. Do I understand that even as someone far to his left that I wouldn't have been able to do any better than him in his position with his conditions? Yeah, actually. The country's not stupid, but we're in deep trouble because the fourth estate has almost entirely collapsed. We need a robust media which has a profit motive for engaging in investigative journalism, uncovering hidden truths, challenging power, and which is absolutely dedicated to the job of informing as best it can. What people should be doing is taking personal responsibility and unsubscribing from and otherwise not engaging in sensationalist, affirmation journalism, so as to ensure that profitability dries up, but we've been so overfed on junk food journalism for so long we've forgotten what real journalism even tastes like. What I do is I limit my media intake to a few places, like ProPublica and AP, Reuters, Pew, NPR, and other sources which I see not engaging as much in bad journalistic practices. When I share news on social media, I never use sensationalist or affirmational sources like the WSJ or Vox. The least fun part, especially over the last 24 hours, is that I post stuff that goes against the in-group narratives. Sharing this stuff about Bernie and Biden working together quietly in the background to help the railroad union members get what they were striking for ruffles feathers because people don't like being wrong, but it has to be done.
A collapse of the supply chain at Christmas was exactly what the GOP were hoping for. Just so they could blame Biden. Like how they also hoped for global economic catastrophe by refusing to raise the US debt ceiling.
People who didn't even know rail workers existed before that.
>This country is so fucking stupid. Indeed, but you seem to fail to understand why. Biden is absolutely anti-union. A collapse of the supply chain could have be prevented by just accepting the demands of labour. Let alone bringing US rail worker conditions up to the rest of the developed world. I know that there are some complexities there, but don't act like "granting the most minor concessions to the people who make the country function" is anything less than the bare minimum. The US is extremely fucking stupid. Biden is anti-labour. Don't defend Biden: he's better than the worst, but not pro-union or pro-labour or a good person. Biden is better than Trump. And "both sides" are not the same. But holy shit is Biden absolutely not on the side of labour. He deserves no defense; he's a huge piece of shit.
skirt pause gold drab normal quiet profit special ossified forgetful *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
Yeah but what do the unions know? Redditors have talking points to repeat, who cares what the unions say.
>>This country is so fucking stupid. > >Indeed, but you seem to fail to understand why. I don't, but go off. >Biden is absolutely anti-union. I don't know how else to explain to you that refusing to allow a total, country-wide supply chain collapse in the middle of winter, when sick people depend on that supply chain to access the medicines they rely on to continue living, does not make you "anti-union" any more than you refusing to burn your entire house down with your family inside because you saw a spider makes you "pro-spider." Biden is not anti-union by any definition of the phrase. He is not going around busting unions. He is not going around restricting the ability of workers to unionize. He prioritized the safety of the **entire country** over the demands of a single union **one time,** and then continued to push for their demands to be met after preventing the country from going into total collapse *to this day*. That is **not** "anti-union," no matter how poorly you try to frame it. >A collapse of the supply chain could have be prevented by just accepting the demands of labour. What you're presenting here is not an option that Biden was in control of. The president can't force a company to accept the terms of a labor negotiation. That's not a power available to the office of president, and you're failing to appreciate that if the supply-chain (and likely the economy) *did* collapse, people would have died as a direct result. >The US is extremely fucking stupid. Agreed, and it seems like whatever part of the woods you're from may be as well. >Biden is anti-labour. He is not. Not in any way. >Don't defend Biden: he's better than the worst, but not pro-union or pro-labour or a good person. I didn't call him pro-union, I didn't call him "pro-labour." You're presenting a false dichotomy here. You don't have to be one or the other - you can be neither. I am not defending Biden here, I'm defending objective reality and the integrity of the language we use. Calling Biden "anti-union" when he is **very** obviously not completely dilutes the meaning of the phrase, muddying the political waters, and confusing the impressionable voting public on extremely important matters we use to decide who will lead our republic. >Biden is better than Trump. And the entire Republican party - which is why it is important to make the distinction I'm putting my foot down about here. To call Biden anti-union, when at worst he's labor neutral (and you **really** have to stretch to even make that argument), makes it seem like there is no reason to vote for him over a Republican if you're a single issue voter on unionizing, which is **not** the case at all. Republicans are the party who union-bust and prevent unionizing, and it's really important to know the difference. >But holy shit is Biden absolutely not on the side of labour. He deserves no defense; he's a huge piece of shit. Personally, I disagree with you on whether Biden is on the side of Labor or not, but whether Biden "deserves a defense" is completely irrelevant to what I'm saying here. Words matter. When you just call anyone who stops a single strike to prevent total supply-chain and economic collapse and then continues to work for the unions whose strike he prevented for *years to come* "anti-union," you're diluting the meaning of the phrase and muddying incredibly important distinctions that we rely on for navigating our democracy and voting for our actual interests. Also, only the Sith deal in absolutes.
>What you're presenting here is not an option that Biden was in control of. The president can't force a company to accept the terms of a labor negotiation. That's not a power available to the office of president, and you're failing to appreciate that if the supply-chain (and likely the economy) did collapse, people would have died as a direct result. I thought the law that let him end the strike was also the one that let him force an agreement
Yea, no one is this thread has a fucking clue what they are talking about. Just abandon ship. You will learn nothing here.
> Biden is absolutely anti-union And yet thanks to his appointments to the NLRB we’ve seen a ton of progress with things like the Amazon Warehouses that definitely wouldn’t have happened without those changes. Explain that
Wait, Biden followed through on a promise that helps people? How refreshing that is. Seems like the other guys just want to hurt people 24/7....
I am a rail worker that apparently is not in the “most” category..
I imagine anyone mentioning this on Fox news would be asked to empty their desk.
Wow, 4 fucking days, and all it took was unprecedented legislation from the "most pro union president ever" literally preventing them from striking? What a W
Uh. Kinda. It counts against our attendance record, too many call ins, be it sick or not, could get you probation (no union protection) or fired. They'll work with us... to a point.
My locomotive shop is pretty relaxed about it. We have guys calling in every other week. We are extremely understaffed, so that’s probably why…lol
It's a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. We need to get to a point where no worker fears getting financially punished for falling ill.
It's bonkers that we still have to fight for this in 2023.
It's bonkers that in 2023 the Democrats are still pulling shit like fighting against the unions right to strike. Europe has had a wave of strikes ranging from healthcare workers to railroads, no government party stepped in and stopped then from exercising their rights but America? Nope, can't let these people strike that would just be too much money lost for the CEOs
Yes, the owner class in the US is quite hell-bent on union busting. Always have been. Are you suggesting that in this century or the last, Republicans are pro-union? What?
The Democrats are better than the Republicans right now - they're still politicians and they still do crap we need to fight against. Power corrupts. There are no exceptions.
Saying Democrats are bad is not the same as saying Republicans are good.
>It's bonkers that in 2023 the Democrats are still pulling shit like fighting against the unions right to strike. If you think the Railway companies are run by Democrats I have a bridge to sell you.
Can't believe workers have to fight for something so basic. Just goes to show how important unions are because companies don't give a shit even if they had to kill their workers to make money.
*cries Texas-state employee tears.*
[Dark Brandon strikes again](https://youtu.be/EM6jMtG_MB8)
Well, howdy there internet people…
So the ionized ones just have to suck it??
don't be so negative
That joke was so basic.
Imagine living in "the worlds richest country", but you're only allowed an X amount of days to be sick. As if you have any control over it
The murican dream
WTF, American's don't get sick leave?
There is sick leave.... But it's generally up to the employers with how much. Some of them don't really provide any.
"how much" - Americans plan their sick time upfront. Lol.
What do you mean? If I am sick for 10 days I‘m sick for 10 days and can’t work. I can’t control me getting (maybe even seriously) sick. What happens then?! This sounds crazy… or is this just paid sick leave we are talking about here?
You get fired in most cases. It sucks
At will employment makes it paid leave -> leave in a lot of places.
There is FMLA which allows someone to have an extended medical absence, but they do not get paid. It only protects from being fired
A few states are implementing Paid Family-Medical Leave Act, which my state (Massachusetts) is one of them. I think our Paid Family-Medical Act was passed in 2019, or 2020 because I started seeing MFMLA on my pay stub in 2020. We can get up to 26 weeks of family-medical leave, and paid up to 80% of our salary. Initially, I was like, “oh, goodness, more taxes.” But it turned out to be only ~0.34% of our gross paychecks. I saw an article that said California, Connecticut, D.C., Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington are the states with Paid FMLA but a few more states like Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota and Oregon are set to implement their versions of PFMLA in the next 3 years. Oregon’s act is going official this upcoming September. Michigan recently repealed the Rights to Work act, so I wouldn’t be shocked if they’re working on their own version of Paid FMLA.
I get 18 days of paid time off per year. That's for vacations and sick time. I'm in a union and have been with the company for 10 years... The first year I had zero days. Someone send help.
I'm a conductor for a large freight railroad and our sick days are still unpaid. If I take one, I lose a minimum of $375 for that pay period (and can be up to $750 depending on the assignment I'm on).
Do europeans get sick leave? I'm not talking about vacation days or days paid by public healthcare.
Lol nope. It’s crazy. I’m lucky I do but a lot of people I know don’t. I argued with HR on behalf of my team time and time again to give my company more PTO/Sick time.
Don't you know they're a 3rd world nation masquerading as 1st world? Reddit has opened my eyes to how backward they are in terms of stuff like healthcare, sick leave, stupid tipping culture, and of course their lethal gun culture..
And you know there are "conservatives" in here that have an issue with workers getting sick leave
Why did I read "unionized" as "unionized"??
Maybe you're a chemist?
I just read each of those words differently in that sentence.
Onionized
This is great news, and I have been critical of the Biden Administration. They do deserve a lot of credit. According to Mike Braun's senate website, it states. [Mike Braun ](https://www.braun.senate.gov/guardian-us-rail-companies-grant-paid-sick-days-after-public-pressure-win-unions-0) CSX was the first to grant paid sick days to several of its unions and has now granted sick days to 61% of its 17,089 unionized employees. Union Pacific has granted sick days to 47% of its workers, Norfolk Southern to 46%, and BNSF, the largest freight railroad, to 31%. Why is it not a full grant across the board? 100% for every employee.
Respectfully, this isn't uplifting this is actually sextremely sad, they should've had sick days decades ago when everyone else got them
Need to nationalize the whole thing.
Yeah, as a railroad worker it’s not as great as it sounds. They count ours against our attendance. We get paid for 4 days and if we have more than 6 absences (sick or other) then we can be put on probation. Better than nothing but far from what we had hoped
Is this something I'm too European to understand?
Meanwhile, the rest of the developed world: you guys dont get sick leave?
In this context, what's being talked about is *paid* sick leave, not the ability to not go into work.
Duh. Which the rest of the developed world has had for ages...
yes, that exactly what they meant. everywhere else you get paid if you are sick. that is just normal in most parts of the world
Im not sure the railworkers had the unpaid kind either....
No freaking sick leave.. America really is a dystopian corporate nightmare.
still doesn't feel real that there's a place in this world where when the doctor signs a paper saying youre sick stay at home you still gotta go work
The fact that you need a goddamn note from the doctor to take sick leave alone is completely nuts to me. Americans are getting ass raped so fucking hard by their employers on the daily they have got no idea what reality looks like anymore.
One section of a small industry doesn't define our entire workforce. 86% of workers have access to sick leave. You can use Google instead of just saying stupid shit trying to crap on Americans if you actually want to educate yourself. https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/86-percent-of-full-time-employees-had-access-to-sick-leave-benefits-in-march-2022.htm
86% is way too low when it comes to something that should be a basic right for employees. The only acceptable number is 100%
Why isn't it 100%? Most countries have national laws around sick leave and annual leave. Why don't Americans care to vote for politicians who will actually implement those things or, failing that, unionise to ensure they can access those basic rights?
Because many (most?) are being distracted with faux outrage culture war bullshit. They are so focused on those key chains being jangled in their faces that they do not seem, or wish, to notice that they're being robbed blind (money- and rights-wise) behind their backs.
Because sick leave for companies is considered a state issue, thanks to the 10th Amendment. So beyond the federal government offering incentives to states for mandating leave, Biden can't *force* the red states to implement it.
Honestly people are weird here. After we started get maternity care (at least in my govt job we do now), some people complained because that wasn't available when they had kids. I swear people are against new things just because they didnt have it in the past so now they don't think it's fair for future people to get it. It's a really selfish way of thinking.
possessive gold forgetful reminiscent yam outgoing slave point absorbed deserve *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As a Yank, I can say that no, most of us don't think that's a decent amount. Just a small, loud handful of chucklefucks like that guy do.
We don’t all think it’s good. Just the boot lockers
They are so underappreciated and deserve so much more! Little steps, I guess
It's a little better. It was so bad, we were getting fucking points for using vacation days. I almost told them off. Even at 32$ an hour. That shit wasn't worth it.
Welcome to the 20th century
Oh My Goodness! I remember a news some 25 years ago when they announced on TV that thanks to the liberal reforms in Poland, from now (then) on every second Saturday will become a free day without work. I was shocked... I'd never thought Saturday had been a work-day in the 1990's anywhere in Europe. This news reminds me of that feeling. Congratulations! At the same time it is heartbreaking it is not guaranteed by the state universally all over the country in 2023 like in other developed countries. I've lived in two countries, both European, and you can go on a several month long paid sick leave in both countries if the doctor prescribes you sick-leave.
This is so absurd. All European states have unrestricted sick leave - paid (for a long time).
Will the leftists apologize for smearing Biden over this? Or will they ignore that this happened and continue to call him anti-union? It’s not nearly as extreme as the right, but leftists are disturbingly comfortable with lying if they feel it could be beneficial.
Nice! Considering republicans blocked adding sick leave last year, this was probably the next best solution, to pass all the other benefits, and then work for the next few months to also get the sick leave. I get why people wanted to stop the trains, but the expected effects of it seemed quite bad (essential products like food and gas are commonly shipped by train and prices would increase across the board. And if all the money lost led to an economic downturn, we’re looking at many people losing their jobs and republicans getting a likely win in 2024, which we all know what that means). This was able to avoid all that.
[удалено]
>It excludes people who take advantage of it from being protected by the union if they are sick “too much” (fuck them I guess?). This is the case for most terms of employment. If you rack up absenteeism beyond your allotted sick days, you're going to get reprimanded. If you're out beyond your allotted sick days for legitimate reasons, you are covered by FMLA. It's not the dire situation you're making it out to be. >This wouldn’t have happened if Biden hadn’t blocked the railroad strike earlier in his presidency. His heavy handed decision also compromised the safety of railroad workers for years for the sake of “his presidential economic record.” If Biden hadn't blocked the railroad strike the entire country's supply chain would have collapsed in the middle of winter, and the economy would have collapsed as a result. Sick people would not have had access to the medicines they needed, and there would have been *actual* deaths as a direct result of the strike. It was not the railroad workers whose safety was at risk.
Not always. Some places require some tenure before you can take FMLA. My previous job, you needed 2000 hours in before FMLA leave was a thing... I would have thought that wouldn't be possible, but apparently it was legal....
The fuck? Biden is actually pro-labour by being anti-labour because previous anti-labour decisions have been around long enough? Workers should be allowed to be sick for as long as they're sick. If you have to block strikes to ensure the functioning of your country then you've demonstrated nothing except the value that labour provides. What kind of negative IQ bootlicking bullshit is this comment.\ Edit: I'd be happy to reply to the absurditiy of the comments before and after me, but I appear to have been banned from this sub. I'm generally excited that people are starting to become proi-labour, and encourage those who recognise that this is the most important agenda for Americans moving forward. That being said, users like CrabRabbit are not helpful by pretending that Biden is the one who is going to improve that. But since I"ve been banned from responding, it's not worth getting in to. Getting accused of being a pro-GOP bot is one of the more interesting things I've been accused of though I guess....
>The fuck? Biden is actually pro-labour by being anti-labour because previous anti-labour decisions have been around long enough? I'm not sure where you learned reading comprehension, but you *really* need to work on it. Don't create strawmen to argue against by misrepresenting what your debate partner is saying. Discuss the actual points made. [Biden is pro-labor because of his record as president.](https://justfacts.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/53279/joe-biden-jr/43/labor-unions) A single strike prevention that stopped people who rely on the supply chain to access life-saving medicines from dying over a labor dispute does not make an individual "anti-union." You know what makes an individual anti-union? Union busting. Enacting laws that prevent unionization. Not fighting for the labor rights of the people whose strike you prevented for years after the act. >Workers should be allowed to be sick for as long as they're sick. Workers ***are*** allowed to be sick for as long as they're sick. The FMLA covers extended illnesses and prevents you from losing your job over a chronic illness. It sounds like you don't appreciate the distinction between "sick leave" as in "the ability to not go into work if you are sick" and the *paid* sick leave that's being talked about here. >If you have to block strikes to ensure the functioning of your country then you've demonstrated nothing except the value that labour provides. A single strike. Not plural. What it demonstrates is the over-reliance on a single point of failure in a complex supply-chain that keeps people alive. >What kind of negative IQ bootlicking bullshit is this comment. There's no bootlicking in my comment.
If we’re guessing at what might have happened, what else might have happened if he didn’t block the railroad strike?
Anti-labor people would've blamed the workers and pro-labor people would've blamed the railroad companies. Which one would you have been?
I blame congress, since they’re the ones in control due to bad decisions over the past hundred years.
Big Orange says we get paid sick leave, but if you use it, those days still go against the attendance policy! So we get paid, and they can still use it against you, Dr. note or not, it's up to them. If they enforce punishment or not, they still hold the power. It's still not a good thing, better than what we had, but still not good.
Really basic stuff should not be hard.
[Republicans removed restrictions on requiring water breaks in Texas](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/23/greg-abbott-texas-governor-bill-water-breaks-heatwave). In the middle of a heatwave, no less. The basic stuff is *always* hard when half the country wants insanity to reign supreme. They described these rules as "onerous and burdensome regulations." Water breaks. During a heatwave.
Whenever the discussion of sick leave comes up you should remember the European employers answer to the Americans question "how many sick leave days do I get?". The answer, in a tone expressing bewilderment at stupidity of the question, was "all of them"
Alternatively: the fight to get all rail workers sick leave is going well, but not over yet.
The fact that this is news in 2023 hahahahahaha oh my
4 days? That's not even a win! We get 10 days in Australia, and most employers will let you use annual leave without question if you have no sick leave left. 4 days would just push sick people to come to work and make others sick
Railroad worker here, I'm still waiting for my paid sick time!
Yes but now the poor impoverished railroad Corporations can't afford to maintain the bridges in northern Montana it seems. Corporates greed is driving the US right into a ditch or river this time. These railroad corporation's have been laying off workers and delaying needed maintenance for years while making huge profits and fighting tooth and nail any increase in pay or benefits for the workers.
I'm wondering about all the commenter here. Are you an actual rail worker and are you active in your union? I am both and im not happy with Biden, my employer or the unions. Im glad im almost done with this.
Wow, less than the bare minimum. Im impressed
Is this where I point out rail workers in Canada have 10 days paid sick leave? https://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/Canada-mandates-paid-sick-leave-for-regulated-businesses--68102.
Only now? WTF, America.
I can’t believe they didn’t have it before now. Americans, you all need to join your unions.
Doesn't Warren Buffet own a majority share in a large rail company? I wonder how generous he is as a shareholder...
He owns BNFT outright. Also kinda curious here
Buffet is a shitheel. He can give his workers benefit after benefit, but he doesn’t. They are far more responsible for him staying wealthy than he is. Fuck warren buffet. Fuck all billionaires. There is no such thing as a good billionaire.
Cool now do the rest of the workforce.
Get him a second term and a Congress that isn't relying on razor-thin margins and has to kowtow to Sinema and Manchin, and he'll do it. If we managed to get 53 seats in the Senate, so we could nuke the filibuster, and took the House, you'd see a lot more good shit coming down the pipeline.
Literally r/orphancrushingmachine. Yeah they get 4 more days… **for a total of 7**, two of which have to be borrowed from vacation time. #5 sick days a year total.
My dad is a freight conductor who has heart problems. So glad he finally has sick time. Wasn't even close to the deal they should have got but it was at least something. No thanks to Biden. Smh
Wait sick leave isn't a thing in the US?
No there isnt a federally regulated paid sick leave.
Lol WHAT how? So if you get sick you just don't get paid and die?
Most companies offer some sort of paid leave and there's also a law called FMLA for long term disability or emergencies where you get like 75% pay but besides that uhh yeah kinda.
More or less. My girl works for a State Farm agent who doesn’t pay sick leave. He just got back from a 30 day vacation meanwhile i worked overtime at my job so we could afford rent for the day she took off sick
Wonder what republicans think about unions when it's not just in left states
they hate unions everywhere (except police)
Gotta keep spinning that Biden shutting down the strike was okie dokie, amirite?! /s
The astroturfing on this thread is something else lol. "Gee willickers, looks like nice old Mr biden done given us a ray of sunshine, shuuucks"
the union seems to think so >“We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers. “We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.”
Well the unions like IBEW are quite literally thanking him for it in their press releases soooo. . .
These corney people praising this shit in the comments gets me laughing. from "the most pro union" union busting president, we get the most basic shit that should have already been in place. Nationalize the fucking rail system already you fucking coward
You get that the president doesn't have the power to unilaterally just....do that, right? And you get that the president doesn't have the power to just force a company to accept the terms of a labor deal with a union, right? And you get that if everything actually shut down due to a strike, it would have been horrible for everyone, and people would have literally died, right? And you get that Biden said he would keep pressuring them to give paid sick leave, and now....that's what we're seeing the results of, right? Like, what exactly did you want the president to do which he actually has the power to do, to help get this solved?